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

Kevin Stange kevin at steadfast.net
Mon Jan 10 16:51:22 EST 2011


On 12/29/2010 12:04 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> I generally agree with you, with a couple exceptions - noted in-line below.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:30, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Your message articulates a fork in the road.
>>
>> The first path is the path that was argued back with the transfer
>> policy.  Some folks won't deploy IPv6 for various reasons, for
>> instance their vendor is 6 months from giving them support on their
>> platform, or their capital budget doesn't let them upgrade the
>> hardware until the next fiscal year.  The idea was to give these
>> folks who had real impediments to IPv6 access to IPv4 so they were
>> not dead in the water.
>>
>> The second path is the path you are arguing with PP125.  Faced with
>> decreasing IPv4 stocks we should choose to give them to the folks
>> who are already fully IPv6 enabled and embracing the future, rewarding
>> them for their early adoption and forward thinking.  Those who can't
>> do IPv4 should be left behind at this point, they missed the bus
>> and it's no longer worth throwing good resources at people who just
>> aren't going to make it.
> 
> prop-125 does not require an org to be fully IPv6 enabled. It allows
> an org to get an equivalent amount of IPv4 to the IPv6 that they have
> deployed. This means that any org that deploys IPv6 in even part of
> their network has access to new IPv4. Perhaps an org can dual-stack
> their backbone but not their DSLAMs, or their servers, (or only some
> servers/head-ends/etc.) that org can still get some IPv4 under this
> policy.

I don't like the amount of paperwork this implies I or ARIN would have
to do to establish my need for IPv4 space.

The proposal seems to say (though the terms "enabled," "deployed," and
"dual-stack" are thrown around chaotically in the proposal) that we need
to ensure that we can account for a number equivalent to 80% of the IPv4
addresses we want in a new allocation in customers that are actually
implementing services on IPv6.  This is something that would take a lot
of probing our network to verify.  What responsibility and tools would
ARIN be given or expected to develop in order to permit them to verify
the justification provided by the org actually meets the requirements?

Our customers have been informed that IPv6 is something they need to
prepare for.  A large portion of our network is dedicated server
customers that largely self-manage their servers.  We cannot force these
customers to "enable" IPv6 on servers even though they have been given
the option to do so at any time.  It makes no sense to hold my org or
similar orgs responsible for whether our current customers are
themselves ready for IPv6 before we can be allowed to make sure new
customers are dual stacked and ready for IPv6.

We as an organization can't support prop 125 with this kind of
expectation being placed on us.

-- 
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast Networks
http://steadfast.net
Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110110/5827ac07/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list