[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Jan 3 14:01:13 EST 2011
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:51, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
> I oppose 125
> I know I'm late on this thread, but you expect ARIN to actually monitor
> A/AAAA records and somehow figure out abuse? Are we to give ARIN access to
> every box so they can confirm that there is a v6 address on the box as well?
> What about the millions of boxes which don't use A/AAAA records or need
ARIN currently requires that you demonstrate use of your current
allocations/assignments before you can receive more addresses. This
policy simply expands that current practice. What I expect is that
organizations demonstrate to ARIN (as they do today) that they meet
> 125 proposes something that ARIN has no way of enforcing (which is probably
> one reason it was tossed). In addition, it's overly restrictive for those
> who do follow the rules.
Can you expand on how prop-125 is overly restrictive? Perhaps suggest
changes to make it less onerous?
> There are still plenty of interfaces that have no need, nor can support,
> IPv6. Perhaps it's changed, but MPLS wasn't working with v6, management of
> CPE sure as heck doesn't need v6 in the short term.
Many folks are still missing the forest for the trees, IMO. Prop-125
requires that a requester demonstrate that they have dual-stacked as
many addresses as they are requesting, not every address that they
have (unless they are doubling their network every time they make a
request to ARIN). Even in the extreme, prop-125 has a safeguard built
in; the up-to 80% rule, which means that no org is ever required to
Here is an example that might help:
ISP Q currently has the equivalent of a /10, or 4,194,304 IPv4 addresses.
They are growing at a rate of 20% a year, so they need an additional
838,861 or so addresses this year.
A /12 would give them a bit over 1 million addresses, let's say they
can qualify for that under current policy.
If we apply prop-125, ISP Q will be required to demonstrate that they
are using a /12 (about 25% of their total space) worth of their
current IPv4 space for dual-stacked interfaces. They will also have to
use the new space (which is for growth of their network) alongside of
A very similar scenario plays out for content providers and any other
network operator; the more new space you need (aka the faster you are
growing) the more IPv6 deployment you must undertake; up to 80% parity
between IPv4 and IPv6.
One thing I know about growing networks, especially growing them
quickly, is that it requires more gear. So, prop-125 requires that the
networks purchasing the most new gear deploy the most IPv6.
In other words, the recurring argument that there is legacy gear out
there that can't support an IPv6 address is irrelevant. Yes, I too can
point to lot's of things that can not do IPv6, the kicker is that
those devices will cause their owners problems regardless of prop-125.
The bottom line is that anyone deploying *new* gear should be
demanding IPv6 capability.
> Finally, dual-stack is not the only migration technology. For ARIN to
> enforce one migration method over another will only hinder v6 migration.
As previously stated, I am very willing to amend the proposal to
include parallel IPv6 networks. The point is to provide service parity
between IPv4 and IPv6.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML