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

[Chris Grundemann]

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/12, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> I simply prefer to spend our limited time and policy cycles attempting
>> the most effective and efficient methods of meeting the goals
>> intended.
>
> That makes sense.    But only if you are proposing doing something
> different,  that you can show is  likely to be more effective.

You're right. Let me make my proposals more clear:

1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to
get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one
maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still
some possible room for improvement:
   1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4
and IPv6 simultaneously.
   1B) Move the </40 small/x-small threshold to <=/48.
(both of these ideas likely need to move to ARIN discuss if they are
of interest and probably should go into the ASCP process if there is
support for either/both at this time)

2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6.
There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this:
   2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current
state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements.
   2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs
outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but
are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion).
   2C) Implement policy that requires IPv6 deployment.
(the first two again should probably move to ARIN discuss and be
submitted to the ASCP if they find support, the third has been
discussed and rejected before)

Since four of the five belong on ARIN discuss (and the fifth is likely
a non-starter), I will send a note there immediately following this
message to continue the conversation as others see fit. Thanks.

> Also working on removing barriers to IPv6 deployment through automatic
> allocations is not mutually exclusive  with other efficient means that
> may be more effective,   does not detract from their effectiveness.

Not strictly mutually exclusive, no. However, I believe that automatic
assignments, however well intentioned, are not technically nor
psychologically sound and run the risk of actually harming IPv6
deployment by making IPv6 addresses a gimmick, akin to cracker jack
box toys. As we tighten the restrictions on IPv4 and loosen the
qualifications for IPv6, we send a signal of value to the community.
Is IPv6 value-less, to be thrown from parade floats like confetti? Or
is it a valuable but abundant resource which requires both deployment
and stewardship?

> ARIN can implement multiple changes and methods to encourage IPv6
> deployment,  that are more effective together,  than any single change
> on its own.

You will find no disagreement on that from me. =)

Cheers,
~Chris


> --
> -JH

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com