[arin-ppml] Alternative to proposal 125: Requiring IPv6 planning for IPv4 allocations
hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 17:50:38 EST 2011
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. 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.
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 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.
Could someone on the staff clarify that please?
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Scott Leibrand <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.
> 126.96.36.199 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.
> 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