[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Mon Jan 3 14:18:23 EST 2011

On 1/3/2011 1:01 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> 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
> the requirements.
And how, exactly, do you demonstrate this?

> Can you expand on how prop-125 is overly restrictive? Perhaps suggest
> changes to make it less onerous?

It requires dual stack. It requires DNS entries. Both of which are 

> 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

It doesn't read that way, and I doubt ARIN would interpret it that way. 
Historically, all documentation is for existing networks, not what we 
plan to do. So the demonstration of dual stack would be for every v4 
address already in use.

> 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
> IPv6 space.

And how are they exactly supposed to demonstrate such a thing?

> 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.

Not at all. I don't need v6 for MPLS. It runs fine over v4 within the 
network. I don't need v6 for management of cpe either. If I'm large like 
comcast and run out of rfc-1918, I might request IPv4 from ARIN to 
continue numbering cpe devices.

>> 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.

The problem is that ARIN shouldn't have such restrictions. What happens 
when someone comes up with the new migration technology that everyone 
loves, yet it is in violation of the policy? ARIN isn't in the business 
of designing our networks. Policy shouldn't attempt to do so.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list