[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Wed Dec 29 13:04:56 EST 2010

I generally agree with you, with a couple exceptions - noted in-line below.

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:30, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> Your message articulates a fork in the road.
> The first path is the path that was argued back with the transfer
> policy.  Some folks won't deploy IPv6 for various reasons, for
> instance their vendor is 6 months from giving them support on their
> platform, or their capital budget doesn't let them upgrade the
> hardware until the next fiscal year.  The idea was to give these
> folks who had real impediments to IPv6 access to IPv4 so they were
> not dead in the water.
> The second path is the path you are arguing with PP125.  Faced with
> decreasing IPv4 stocks we should choose to give them to the folks
> who are already fully IPv6 enabled and embracing the future, rewarding
> them for their early adoption and forward thinking.  Those who can't
> do IPv4 should be left behind at this point, they missed the bus
> and it's no longer worth throwing good resources at people who just
> aren't going to make it.

prop-125 does not require an org to be fully IPv6 enabled. It allows
an org to get an equivalent amount of IPv4 to the IPv6 that they have
deployed. This means that any org that deploys IPv6 in even part of
their network has access to new IPv4. Perhaps an org can dual-stack
their backbone but not their DSLAMs, or their servers, (or only some
servers/head-ends/etc.) that org can still get some IPv4 under this

> It also illustrates the problem I have with the policy.  If we apply
> PP125 to the transfer market, I feel that we effectively nullify
> the potential usefulness of that market.  While I was never in favor
> of transfers because I did not think they would do enough good to
> outweigh the harm, I do believe that those who argued for it were
> standing on a solid footing.

To avoid redundancy on the list, see this previous post for my general
sentiment regarding applying this policy to transfers:

> In this case I think PP125 is just too late to the party, so I'm
> in favor of sticking with the status quo.  That said, if we adopt
> PP125 I think it renders the transfer market nearly useless for
> it's intended goals, almost to the point where it is worth considering
> repealing specified transfers if PP125 were to pass.
> This policy needed to come up at the same time as the transfer proposal,
> so we could debate the two forks.  However, we chose one with the
> transfer mess and have started down that road, to take the other fork
> now means to back up a significant distance and go in another direction.

While I agree that this policy would have been more ideally proposed
(much) earlier, I think that skipping it now because no one thought of
it (or how to do it) earlier is a misstep as well.


> --
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list