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

[Jimmy Hess]

On 5/13/12, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> 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?
> It's not a huge win because it won't make any appreciable difference,
> it's not actually a win at all.

It removes a barrier in IPv6 deployment;  which is not just about
cost, but also about time
and paperwork.    It also greatly simplifies  the allocation of
addresses,  and therefore eliminates address space management overhead
expenses for the RIR.
Carve one /14  to represent /48 end-user assignments  a priori based
on telephone number.
Carve one /8 to represent  a IPv6 /24 end-user assignment  for each
16-bit AS number.

Any allocation made in an unstructured way is then a "special allocation"


> Let's ask the real question here: How does blindly assigning IPv6 to
> organizations provide any additional motivation to deploy IPv6? If

It takes away and excuse not to deploy IPv6.

> We could also revisit the formerly unpopular idea of requiring IPv6
> deployment in order to obtain additional IPv4 addresses...

Added barriers to deployment of IPv4  without IPv6 is also a possibility.
But based on your argument.... just obtaining the addresses doesn't
mean they will deploy IPV6.

They may simply obtain IPv6 addresses,  without deploying them,  so that their
burden of obtaining more IPv4 resources is reduced.


Perhaps we should have a  3 month  SUPPLY  rule on both allocations
and transfers
for organizations  that have not demonstrated IPV6 deployment,

A 12 months of IPv4 resources supply rule on allocations and transfers
to organizations
that have demonstrated at least 30%  IPv6 deployment.


--
-JH