[arin-ppml] Preemptive IPv6 assignment

[Brandon Thetford]

>From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.morrow at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:59 AM
>I took 'experiment' as 'I put my things in a "lab" to see how they'd work
and work
>out bugs'
>
>so renumbering, or a full deployment (with a numbering plan and such)
doesn't
>seem to be a problem there. I suspect a /32 is probably NOT enough for most
ISP-
>type folks anyway, so just assigning a random /32 isn't super helpful...
>
>-chris

As someone else pointed out, however, assigning a random /32 doesn't put
those ISPs in any worse situation than they were in to begin with.  They'd
just have to come to ARIN and ask for a bigger block, which should be as
easy as it would have been for them to get a block that big in the first
place.

For end users, however, assigning a /32 is helpful, because it accomplishes
a few things:
1) It gets them v6 space to hurry up and get rolling (or not, if they just
let it expire, in which case it hurts nobody).
2) It's a large enough block that one can actually multi-home with it.
3) It doesn't waste that much space - especially if those allocations are
returned upon inaction by the assignees.


As an alternative/enhancement to this idea, what if fees for IPv4
allocations were to become contingent on at least having a v6 allocation?
For example, state that v4 fees will double for all organizations that do
not at least have a v6 block allocated.  Having the blocks (or being forced
to pay for NOT having them) would, I imagine, encourage people to start
using it.
I'm in support of ramping v4 fees up, anyway, as an extra encouragement to
move the heck on, but that's been discussed before, I believe.

-Brandon