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

[Frank Bulk]

Jason:

Owen made some compelling arguments that have given me food for thought.

That said, at this time the petition would:
a) need to adjust the definition of "real deployment for IPv6" to
accommodate for content, eyeball, and any other kind of network.  While the
devil is in the details, I currently can't think of any requestor that could
say they would never need IPv6 anywhere in their network.  If getting IPv4
space is important, they'll find some way to make IPv6 happen in their
network.  If they can't justify it, then they'll make other accomodations.
b) not apply to transfers.  To apply this requirement would very likely
result in black/gray market transfers and I'd rather avoid that.  At that
point, market forces will more directly drive business decisions in relation
to IPv6.
c) apply to whatever space ARIN holds back from the free pool (i.e. CI,
transition, etc.)

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:schiller at uu.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:14 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: matthew at matthew.at; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient
Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

Frank,

Would you be in favor of supporting the petetion...


A: As written?

B: As written with a different defination for "real deployment of IPv6" 
which may or may not be dual stack?

C: As written, but not applying to specified transfers?

D: As written with a different defination for "real deployment of IPv6" 
which may or may not be dual stack, and not applying to specified 
transfers?


__Jason

==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Frank Bulk wrote:

|Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:18:01 -0600
|From: Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com>
|To: matthew at matthew.at
|Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
|Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient
|    Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
|
|Which is why perhaps prop 125 should be modified to allow transfers sans
|IPv6.  That might even kickstart the transfer market.
|
|Frank
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew at matthew.at] 
|Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:03 PM
|To: frnkblk at iname.com
|Cc: 'Bret Palsson'; arin-ppml at arin.net
|Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient
|Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
|
|On 12/30/2010 10:46 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
|> It's possible that if prop 125 passed that the prices for transferred
IPv4
|> space would go up earlier than if we waited for ARIN's free pool to
|> evaporate.  Those with IPv4 space to sell would price in the fact that
|> IPv4-only shops can't get more IPv4 space from ARIN's free pool.
|The proposal as-is would also prevent transfers to entities that hadn't 
|deployed IPv6. So there'd be *no* transfer market during this time... 
|except a grey/black one.
|
|Matthew Kaufman
|
|_______________________________________________
|PPML
|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.
|