[arin-ppml] Alternative to proposal 125: Requiring IPv6 planning for IPv4 allocations

[Scott Leibrand]

Given the contentious discussions around proposal 125, I'm getting the
sense that even if its petition succeeds, it'll be too controversial
to gain consensus.  So I thought it might be worth posting an
alternative I drafted, and see what kind of reaction it gets.  I don't
intend to introduce this into the policy process myself (as I'm not
convinced it's necessary), but if anyone (particularly supporters of
125) feel that it would be a step in the right direction, feel free to
do so.

I'd also be interested to hear if anyone would be opposed to this
language, and if so, what aspects you object to.  And, as always,
suggestions for improvement would be most welcome as well.

-Scott (speaking only for myself)

4.1.8  IPv6 transition

All organizations requiring IPv4 addresses for Internet connectivity
or services must demonstrate a plan for interoperating with IPv6-only
portions of the Internet.  Components of such plans might include, but
are not limited to: receiving IPv6 address space and using it for
dual-stack or parallel IPv6 deployment; or making use of translation
technologies to allow communication between IPv4 and IPv6 hosts.

4.2.1.7  IPv6 connectivity

ISPs requiring IPv4 addresses from ARIN must demonstrate a plan for
connecting their customers with IPv6-only portions of the Internet, as
detailed in section 4.1.8.

4.3.7  IPv6 transition

End-users requiring IPv4 addresses from ARIN must demonstrate a plan
for interoperating with IPv6-only portions of the Internet, as
detailed in section 4.1.8.