[arin-ppml] Internet means IPv6

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Thu Dec 30 15:40:33 EST 2010

On 12/30/2010 12:18 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> From: Matthew Kaufman<matthew at matthew.at>
>> Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 2:01:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] *Spam?* Re: Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125
>> Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
>> Why is putting 100 legacy machines on the public network of less value than
>> putting 100 new machines on the public network?
> What public network?
The public IPv4 network that will continue to exist for years, perhaps 
decades. But certainly for another 5-10 years.

> If you want to provide a bridge for a PC with arcnet and netx.com, so it can
> ping your token-ring OS/2 machine, or get finger'd by your ATM Irix box,
> use rfc1918.  If you want "Internet access," (with a capital I) that term will
> soon mean IPv6.
Actually, it will soon mean "IPv4 and IPv6"... too bad it hasn't meant 
that for the last couple of years.

If I come to an ISP in 2013 with an AS number and my own IPv4 addresses, 
I expect they'll be able to route them and provide significant 
connectivity to a large and still extant network.

>   In 2012, there will be no expectation of connectivity over
> IPv4; if devices are unavailable over IPv6, it will be the responsibility of the
> laggard to upgrade.
Only if they need those to be reachable by IPv6 endpoints. In 2012 there 
will still be lots of IPv4 endpoints talking to lots of other IPv4 
endpoints, and neither end will need to upgrade.

If an organization gets another /24 worth of IPv4 space via transfer in 
2012, they'll be able to announce it and hook up another 250 endpoints 
and talk to and from all those other IPv4 endpoints. And this will 
probably be true in 2013, and 2014, and maybe even in 2024.

>> it does make sense to set aside
>> *some* of the space for people who need IPv4 addresses *specifically* to
>> operate
>> their IPv6-IPv4 transition technologies, but that's it. Once you've set that
>> aside there is nothing that makes any one need for IPv4 space more important
>> than another unless you want to have a "homeowners association" that starts
>> reviewing each application on its public-interest benefits and choice of web
>> page background color.
> What is the value of "some," and how is in inarbitrary?
Apparently the value of "some" is "a single /10". I'm referring to 2008-5.

If that's not enough, lets see a proposal to reserve some more.
> Or does it make sense for ARIN's analysts to be able to apply a set of
> objective criteria for evaluating requests?  That has been ARIN's practice.
That *does* make sense. What doesn't make sense is having "applicant has 
figured out how to deploy enough IPv6 to impress the analyst" as a 
criteria for whether IPv4 space is needed.

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list