[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition

[Jimmy Hess]

On 5/16/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On May 16, 2012, at 6:08 PM, William Herrin wrote:

>   I said _over the long-term_, please think decades.  There is nothing

When I think decades...  I think "lots of time to solve the problem",
which isn't that bad.
Even if the solution that is adopted  requires router hardware
upgrades (so sad), even if the solution ultimately  involves providers
becoming "picky" about what they will route for a customer;  even if
it ultimately requires an application to an IP address registry for
each ROUTE,  in order to get the digitally signed  certificate
required to originate a route,
with a limit of  1 certificate per organization  and "Required
technical justification other than avoiding renumbering for utilizing
PI".

It's still a better problem than  "The IPv6 routing table is still
mostly empty, because hardly anyone deployed the protocol"



>   to prevent parties from holding multiple IPv4 blocks, and in fact, you
>   may have just created an interesting incentive for parties many years
>   from today to seek out IPv4 blocks (i.e. entirely for the preemptively
>   & non-provider assigned IPv6 prefixes which are associated with them...)

It's possible to offer  preemptive assignment,  with a "requirement to report
usage of the prefix",  before putting it to use.

As soon as it is no longer useful for encouraging IPv6 deployment,  retiring
the preemptive block, excepting reported prefixes, would be an option.

--
-JH