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

[Matthew Petach]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
> 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.

I would also ditch the 80% requirement; in fact, I'd suggest avoiding
any hard-and-fast number, as it's likely to be completely orthogonal
to the intent of the proposal.

Note that at least one company that I'm aware of is making their content
available via IPv6 by making use of v4-to-v6 proxy boxes; thus, the number
of dual-stacked ports is a tiny fraction of the overall network, but
it nonetheless
provides IPv6 reachability to the rest of the internet6 for that
content.  Surely
that would suffice to meet the underlying desire of the proposal, that
we provide
encouragement for further deployment of IPv6?

Matt