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

Mon Jan 10 19:07:44 EST 2011

Hello all,

I am not 100% up on all of the discussion that has brewed over this proposal (I'm new to the list ), but I do want to throw my opinion out there for what it's worth after reading this most recent reply.

"... but I am still unconvinced that forcing anyone to implement IPv6 before they're ready is in the best interests of the community."

We're not completely ready for IPv6 yet either, like most of the country. However, the community, and more importantly, our global community, is actually forcing IPv6 migration by itself. My company is implementing dual stack IPv6 currently and will have IPv6 transit available within 3 months; and I would hope most of us are making some Ipv6 steps to help ease the pain caused by the pending V4 exhaustion. Thus, while ARIN's responsibility may be simply resource allocation in the most conservative of the approach, it is our opinion at LiveAir that networks should have some degree of IPv6 plan or readiness when getting additional IPv4 address space, or a reasonable reason for not having used IPv6 (and "We're not ready yet" doesn't count.) It's coming sooner than anyone wants it to - the community had better be ready. In essence, that makes V4 space the "reward" for making steps towards using the nextgen protocol.

Just our two cents.

jwb
--------------
James W. Breeden | CEO | LiveAir Networks | it's the way we think
1231 FM 153 Unit A | Smithville, TX 78957
email/sip: jwb at liveair.net | o: 512.360.4273 | tf: 877.360.4273 | c: 512.304.0745 | f: 866.396.8990 | www.liveair.net
social net: me - twitter.com/meltedfire | facebook.com/meltedfire | linkedin.com/in/meltedfire
social net: liveair - twitter.com/liveair | facebook.com/liveair

internet and data services . business support platform . web 2.0 development . multimedia production
________________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand [scottleibrand at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 5:52 PM
To: Martin Hannigan
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to proposal 125: Requiring IPv6 planning for IPv4 allocations

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>

Proprietary Information Notice: This message may contain proprietary information that is the property of LiveAir Networks or its clients. Such information may not be shared with outside entities without the prior written consent of LiveAir Networks. If you have received this message in error please destroy it immediately.