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

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Sat May 12 03:58:45 EDT 2012

On 5/11/12, Izaac <izaac at setec.org> wrote:
> - Outright REQUIRE IPv6 requests to correspond with and accompany all
>   IPv4 requests.  And then actually assign and issue that IPv6 space --

1. Problem...  it encourages  providers and end users to apply for
IPv6 resources that they won't use.
2.  The concept requires that IPv6 resources come from ARIN,  but
there may be other sources of v6 addresses such as an upstream,  or a
global organization has an IPv6 allocation from a different RIR;
they should not be required to obtain their IPv6 space from ARIN.

Maybe instead you want to add a requirement that IPv4 allocations for
new networks  be in compliance with RFC 6540,   and the applicant to
receive v4 by new allocation or by transfer show this,  if they are
not also applying for v6 address space..

> - Actively promote the establishment and maintenance of 6to4 gateways by
>   all present IPv4 allocation holders above a sensibly arbitrary size,

6to4 gateways are not necessarily an advisable migration strategy.
4to4 / CGN has significant advantages.

> - Actually bother to pronounce an IPv4 deprecation date.  Only some weak

It would be inappropriate at this time for ARIN to announce a
deprecation date for
IPv4 or IPv4 addressing.   It's not a RIR's place to do that;
it's  IETF's.

If ARIN were to decide they wanted to get out of IPv4 addressing prematurely,
it would be time at that point for them to be replaced as RIR for IPv4.

> Indeed.  I'd revisit his suggestions.  A market, when left to its
> devices, solves these problems with remarkable speed and little

It's amazing that despite the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary,
people keep regurgitating the totally unfounded myth that markets
provide the good
solution to all   problems.

If this were true,   TCP/IP  would    not be deployed very much,
because it would
never have caught on;  the market would have recognized this problem,
and prevented
TCP/IP from succeeding.    Instead most networks would be using the
best closed proprietary (and therefore most lucrative) replacement for
 TCP/IP that the market  had  brought us,  which would have no  IP
address resource exhaustion problem from the beginning.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list