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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 13, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> 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"
> 

Ick! I really don't want to have to renumber my IP network every time my
telephone number changes. I don't know where you live, but, in the US, there
is virtually no such thing as a "permanent" telephone number.

> 
>> 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.

It really doesn't. At least not a credible one.

> 
>> 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.
> 

Right. Requiring them to get addresses does nothing. Requiring them to deploy,
OTOH, might actually be meaningful.

However, a large segment of the community believes that the RIRs should be
protocol agnostic stewards of the resources. I happen to agree with them.

Now, before you call me an IPv4 luddite, understand that I run a full dual-stack
production network and hold the actual job title of IPv6 Evangelist and have
helped a number of countries get added to the list of global IPv6 participants
as well as a number of organizations throughout the world. I've conducted
training programs on 6 continents. (If anyone needs IPv6 training in Antarctica
and is willing to pay my travel expenses, I'll offer the class for free!)

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

Not if the requirement is deployment, not merely obtaining addresses.

> 
> 
> 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.
> 

I kind of like this one, but, it would not be protocol agnostic stewardship.

Owen