[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (was: Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement)

[William Herrin]

On 5/13/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> argument 4 which is that it does not make
> sense to assign unrequested addresses because people that qualify for and
> need IPv4 addresses from ARIN may already have sufficient IPv6 addresses
> from some other source.

Hi Owen,

So what? As you were fond of point out in the discussions about 6rd,
-there is no impending shortage of IPv6 addresses-. Giving every
holder of an ARIN AS a /32 would burn only a /17. It'd still only
consume a /14 if you want three bits of headroom (sparse allocation)
so that those folks can expand without renumbering or introducing
extra routes into BGP.

Weigh this against the cost of delay. Folks very obviously aren't
deploying at the speed you'd like to see. Dealing with ARIN is one of
the many obstructions to doing so, as is finding the funding for
something "we don't need this month."

If we gain speedier deployment and the potential loss is capped at a
single /14 of IPv6 address space, how is preemptive assignment not a
huge win?


> There are already fee reductions in place for IPv6 allocations and have
> been for years.

Not for end users which is where you main resistance is coming from.
ISPs will deploy IPv6 when they're customers include its presence or
absence in their contracting decisions.  End users will deploy either
when they feel like it or after everybody else does.


> On May 12, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Izaac wrote:
>> So, in summary, all three arguments are weaker than a quadriplegic
>> poodle.  Gotcha.  Thanks.

Hi Izaac,

That's my opinion, yes. I find the "they might not use it" argument
lacking as well. Our supposed goal is for folks to deploy and use
IPv6. They for 100% certain won't use the addresses until after
addresses have been assigned. If you're holding an ARIN AS number,
there's a 90%+ likelihood you're using addresses in a way that is not
fully compatible with an ISP assignment. You might tinker with ISP
addresses (just as you might tinker with 6to4 addresses) but you're
not going to deploy until after you have RIR addresses.

If we wanted to pinch pennies, we could get the job done and still
limit preemptive assignment to organizations which actually use their
ARNI AS on the public Internet *and* don't already either hold ARIN
IPv6 addresses or announce addresses from another RIR using one of
their AS numbers into the Internet BGP table. That'd save at least one
bit.

Doing so, however, would raise ARIN's cost: they'd have to do a real
analysis of the registrants instead of trivially pulling "all
registrants with an AS number." All to save a fraction of a one-time
assignment of less than a /14 of IPv6 address space.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004