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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Then I guess we need to make the IPv6 connectivity an ongoing obligation 
to keep the additional IPv4 blocks, rather than a one shot test during 
transfer to eliminate the game playing.

Proof using a mixed web page after they have the block, showing a single 
user with a cookie has fetched BOTH an element on the page using the 
transfered IPv4 address block, as well as an element using the assigned 
IPv6 block would put a stop to this kind of game.  Although, I hope that 
this kind of enforcement would not be needed, but knowing some people, 
maybe it is.  These elements could be put into Arin Online in the form of 
a required annual test.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> This policy won’t help that goal. Applicants who have to jump through a hoop will ask “how high”, do the bare minimum (or outsource the task to someone who already has v6 and makes a business of announcing others’ netblocks just long enough to comply), and then stop there. This draft policy would very rarely help convince anyone to meaningfully deploy IPv6, and would not be worth making life difficult for everyone else.
>
> Scott
>
>> On Nov 11, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Alan Batie <alan at batie.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>