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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 18:52:32 EST 2011


On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Scott,
>
> The Suggestion:
>
> The reason why I am supporting "some" iteration of 125 is that one of
> it's benefits is that it requires a measure of cost sharing across the
> board which is likely to end up being much more burdensome to all
> without something along the lines of 125. Much of the discussion about
> 125 has been related to cost and demonstrates some of the inequities
> in our policies. 125 seems to be somewhat of a right sizing albeit
> theoretically could be a degree or two too far to the right.


Understood.


> Your modification doesn't seem to do anything significant other than
> instill a false sense of security in applicants that are likely to do
> nothing without some requirements.


I would agree that my alternate language doesn't impose implementation
requirements: I think that's actually the main benefit over 125, but we
obviously disagree there, so I won't rehash the arguments.


> Aside from completely throwing out the intent of 125 as you did with
> your modification, how would you contribute to make 125 more palatable
> and continue to allow it to have some level of bite, a real result for
> all of the effort that we're going to have to go through with respect
> to IPv6 transition?
>

I believe my suggestions (mainly re: removing the transfer restrictions)
have already been incorporated into Chris's latest draft.  I no longer have
a strong objection to 125 (as I did to the first versions), but I am still
unconvinced that forcing anyone to implement IPv6 before they're ready is in
the best interests of the community.

-Scott


>
>
> Staff,
>
> The Petition:
>
> I was about to remark that everyone should be reminded that you do not
> have to post publicly to support a petition due to the level of
> causticity of the subject, but I'm unclear if that's the case. I had
> responded privately to a petition previously and I believe it was
> counted, but don't recall being told otherwise.  I checked the PDP and
> it seems vague with respect to any requirement to post to PPML. The
> interpretation that a response to ARIN directly should suffice would
> be reasonable IMHO.
>
>    https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Could someone on the staff clarify that please?
>
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110110/ef81dd8c/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list