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

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Jan 3 14:43:07 EST 2011

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:18, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:

> And how, exactly, do you demonstrate this?

The same way you do today; network designs, device configurations,
SWIP/WHOIS, other network documentation, affidavit, etc. ARIN reviews
the documentation and then spot checks to find inconsistencies (which
trigger a full audit if needed).

> It requires dual stack.

Again, I am willing to include parallel IPv6 deployment.

> It requires DNS entries. Both of which are
> unacceptable.

How do you plan to deploy services over IPv6 without DNS?

> It doesn't read that way, and I doubt ARIN would interpret it that way.

Perhaps you should re-read the proposal text, in particular the
deployment requirements section: IPv6 Deployment
In order to receive additional space ISPs must provide detailed
documentation demonstrating that:
 - for every IPv4 address requested, at least one pre-existing
interface is dual stacked, up to 80% of all interfaces and
 - for every down stream customer site where the new addresses will be
deployed, at least one pre-existing down stream customer site is IPv6
enabled, up to 80% of the total customer base.

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

See response to same question above.

> 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.

I am much more concerned with the services that networks provide than
how they are managed. In order for the Internet to grow, we must
transition to IPv6. You can, of course, choose not too be a part of
the Internet.

> 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.

1) If the IETF starts working on a superior transition method, we can
adjust policy accordingly.
2) There is probably not enough life left in IPv4 for this to occur.

Sustainable, long-term IPv6 deployments will be native everywhere
which that is possible. Today I see two possibilities for this;
dual-stack and parallel network. Please point out the missing
technology and I will happily include it in the policy.


> Jack


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list