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

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On May 14, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I'm really not trying to be flip here, but, I am having some trouble parsing what you are suggesting...

So let me see if I understand this correctly...

You want to force me to consume more IPv4 in order to get my IPv6 for free?

>   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)

So instead of being able to get up to a /40 for $1,250, you want to limit that to a /48 and make the /40 or /44 cost more? Howe does that encourage IPv6 adoption, exactly?

> 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.

I actually like this.

>   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).

They are winding down because we pretty much achieved audience saturation at the events that we participated in. If you have ideas for venues that could reach new audiences of end-users (or ISPs for that matter), I'm sure that ARIN would be very interested. I certainly am interested in any case.

>   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)

Even though I am one of the biggest IPv6 cheerleaders on the planet, I believe this is a step away from protocol agnosticism that should be demonstrated by the RIRs. Leading a horse to water is one thing. This proposal would have us water-boarding the horse in an effort to get him to drink.

> 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.
> 

Nothing wrong with discussing them on arin-discuss (or even PPML, for that matter, IMHO). However, if you want action taken, better to submit them to ACSP.

>> 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?

+1

Owen