[arin-ppml] Alternative to proposal 125: Requiring IPv6 planning for IPv4 allocations

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 18:14:45 EST 2011

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
> On 1/10/2011 4:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> 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 believe the intent should be thrown out. While the officer attestation
> isn't in the policy (wish such things would retrofit into policy), I think
> it should be modified to include attesting that the officer is aware of IPv4
> scarcity and the org has researched IPv6. Implementation status is not my
> concern, and shouldn't be ARIN's. Insuring that people are educated
> concerning IPv4 runout and IPv6 availability is within ARIN's scope. If they
> *choose* not to deploy IPv6, that will be their problem.

Which of these following principles from the revised rational are obectionable?

>To encourage IPv6 deployment prior to and post depletion,

>to enable growth of IPv4 to accelerate IPv6 transition and

>to improve the utilization of IP addresses.

The second bullet point is quite good, IMHO.

There has already been a suggestion(s) to address the dual stack
requirement and the update that Chris provided demonstrated that. All
that the petition does is allow this to continue to be discussed and
would likely include more of the feedback that was presented here and
still be required to be presented at an ARIN meeting where consensus
would be gauged.

All in all, I guess I'm puzzled as to why you wouldn't be able to make
a suggestion on improving this to the point where we move it a bit or
two closer to the center.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list