[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

[Alan Batie]

On 11/11/19 4:13 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> If you want to make meaningful progress, you’re talking about “deploying enough IPv6 to not need another IPv4 block”: that requires either building something to be IPv6-only, or deploying enough IPv6 to reduce the size of the required NAT pool for your remaining IPv4 traffic. Both of those are hard and expensive on an enterprise network, so most enterprises have opted to “buy” so far.

I define meaningful progress in this context as making progress towards
getting ipv6 widely enough deployed that ipv6-only sites can be
reasonably useful in a general context.

This is probably the best justification for this policy I've seen yet:

On 11/11/19 3:35 PM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> It also has an effect on enterprise customers whose CxO's do not want to
> spend money on "unneeded" things.  Once IT tells management that they
> cannot get any more IPv4 addresses without placing some IPv6 in place,
> they will get support for adding IPv6 from the bean counters.  As long
> as IPv6 is considered "Optional", a lot of Orgs will not spend the money
> on it regardless of merit.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3984 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191111/7d2c87fb/attachment.p7s>