[arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:06 , hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> 
> There has been quite a bit of discussion of the proposals to eliminate the wait list by sending freed space to the 4.4 and 4.10 space, and eliminating the waiting list.  I have generally been in favor of this since 4.10 space has a requirement to have/use IPv6 which I think is something that we should consider.

Let’s be clear about this. 4.10 is not a grant of IPv4 just because you have IPv6. It’s specifically small amounts of IPv4 to aid in IPv6 transition. It’s specifically intended for things like dual-stacking name servers and other critical infrastructure, providing space for V6/V4 transition technologies (e.g. 464xlat, IPv4AAS, etc.) and so on. It’s not intended to be a grant of IPv4 for use as general business as usual IPv4 space along side your IPv6 deployment. The policy is pretty clear about that, IMHO. In fact, IIRC, we worked hard at remaining transition technology agnostic while trying to provide language that would properly safeguard this intent.

> I have been thinking about submitting a proposal to for the first time adopt a requirement that anyone receiving 8.5 specified transfers at a minimum have an allocation of IPv6 space. Eventually, I would like to go farther such as a requirement to actually route and use the IPv6 allocation before being able to receive 8.5 specified transfers.

As much as I am an advocate for IPv6 deployment (and I think it’s pretty well known that I am), I don’t think such a policy would be useful or effective in advancing IPv6 deployment.

> The IPv4 /8 pool became empty in 2011, and ARIN has been on empty other than 4.4. and 4.10 space.  While the wait list has served many at ARIN, it appears that the bulk of the marketplace of IPv4 space is being handled under the 8.5 specified transfer process.

I would actually refer to this as 8.3 and 8.4. 8.5 is merely the requirements placed on recipients of 8.3 or 8.4 transfers.

In essence, 8.5 was added when the community decided to decouple transfer policy from section 4 policy for reasons I still fail to grasp and we’re still dealing with some of the fallout from that decision.

> I think it is long overdue to start considering an IPv6 requirement on these transfers.  Looking at the NRPM, this is what I think would be a good proposal:
> 
> Current 8.5.2:
> 
> ARIN allocates or assigns number resources to organizations via transfer solely for the purpose of use on an operational network.
> 
> To this I would add, depending on the strength of the statement desired:
> 
> An operational network for the purposes of receiving IPv4 resources under 8.5 must include having an ARIN IPv6 allocation or assignment [and advertising and using it on the Internet].
> 
> We could simply start by making sure they have IPv6 space before allowing 8.5 transfers. Later we might consider having to show they are actually advertising and using the block before allowing the 8.5 transfers.
> 
> What does everyone think.  Is this the right time or not, and what reasons do you base this opinion on?

I don’t think there is a right time for this, personally.

Anyone can stick an address on a router and announce an empty prefix to a tunnel broker. It doesn’t usefully advance the deployment of IPv6, but it meets your most stringent test above.

Owen