[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Mon Nov 11 22:12:22 EST 2019
I’ve long said that the primary driver to enterprise adoption will most likely be when their employees stop having IPv4 by default at home.
It is my opinion that as IPv4 becomes ever more expensive to support eventually some eyeball providers will be forced to add an IPv4 surcharge for those customers that insist on keeping IPv4.
The question is whether this will be implemented fairly as an IPv4 surcharge or implemented simply as a global rate increase penalizing everyone, including those ready/willing to go IPv6 only.
Once enough remote access solutions that are IPv4 only start breaking in the enterprise world, enterprise IT will be forced to confront the IPv6 reality in the rest of the world.
Owen
> On Nov 11, 2019, at 15:35 , hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>
> That statement is true now, but will not stay that way.
>
> On the residential side and even small business, I can see IPv4 public addresses becoming a "value added" service at an additional cost, with those without it sharing IPv4 public addresses via CGnat, or even an IPv6 only tier promoted for IPtv like Netflix, but saving the provider the cost of CGnat for that customer, thus offered at a discount.
>
> On the consumer side, the big bandwith things (Netflix, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) are already on IPv6, and those with a dual stack connection are already sending and receiving the majority of their bits by IPv6. This will drive this portion of the market demand for additional IPv4 addresses down compared to the Build or Buy side of the enterprise market.
>
> This proposal is to get those who want to expand their IPv4 holdings to dip their toes into the IPv6 pool. It is not directed at the big boys that are already there. Once they adopt some IPv6, the advantages to them will be made more clear, and the rest of their movement may happen voluntary.
>
> 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.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, David Farmer wrote:
>
>> If it is the case that "the vast majority of the current directed transfers are landing in the hands of the major ISP's and Mobile carriers, who have already taken a
>> large step toward IPv6 deployment," Then my question is how is this policy going to be effective in moving the needle for the deployment IPv6?
>> My primary concern regarding this policy is efficacy, will this policy actually increase the deployment IPv6? If not, why are we considering it? Your statement quoted
>> above to me calls into question how effective this policy can be.
>> Thanks
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:09 PM <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>> Yes, this would be a good idea based upon the current IPv4 utilization
>> policy, just without a specific percentage of IPv6 use.
>>
>> This would be a stronger step and statement to IPv6 adoption. In reality,
>> I suspect that the vast majority of the current directed transfers are
>> landing in the hands of the major ISP's and Mobile carriers, who have
>> already taken a large step toward IPv6 deployment, by using it in all
>> network elements that they control. Any slowness in adoption is often due
>> to Customer Provided Equipment that does not support IPv6. Newer standards
>> like DOCSIS 3+ and 5G already mandate IPv6. Customer movement to these
>> technologies to obtain more speed will drive even more IPv6 adoption. The
>> documentation of their effort is often already available to ARIN.
>>
>> As to cost, every bit of traffic that is pushed to IPv6 represents a large
>> portion of traffic that does not have to use expensive network elements
>> such as Carrier Grade NAT because of lack of public IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> Albert Erdmann
>> Network Administrator
>> Paradise On Line Inc.
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Albert
>> >
>> > Reading some comments about the proposal one thing that has been highlighted
>> > is that the mechanism proposed to show IPv6 is operational is simply being
>> > able to communicate to ARIN could be easily fooled I wanted to suggest a text
>> > adjustment in order to make it more effective and still objective for ARIN
>> > staff to be able to do this check.
>> >
>> > The new text could be something like: "Such operational network must at
>> > minimum include an allocation or assignment by ARIN of IPv6 address space
>> > under the same Org ID receiving the transferred IPv4 space. Such Org must be
>> > able to prove this IPv6 space is being routed by using it to communicate with
>> > ARIN and by providing ARIN the documented network deployment details to prove
>> > IPv6 is operational."
>> >
>> > This is not something new to be done as it is similar that the justification
>> > process which has always been done for IPv4, with the specific differences.
>> > It's important to highlight that this doesn't mean one must prove it has 100%
>> > IPv6 deployment, but rather that it is operational and in fact in used by
>> > internal devices, staff, customers, etc rather than just announced to the
>> > internet and used in a single tiny network just for Internet browsing.
>> > I think is reasonable to trust ARIN staff to evaluate at their discretion as
>> > three is precedent in the NRPM and it is not very difficult to differentiate
>> > both scenarios. In short words, a commitment to IPv6 and having it
>> > operational doesn't mean 100% deployment.
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> > Fernando
>> >
>> > On 11/11/2019 17:34, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>> >> I have a request for any numbers on IPv6 adoption of those who have
>> >> received directed transfers in the last year, or any other available
>> >> period.
>> >>
>> >> I have looked at some of the blocks that have been transferred, and most of
>> >> them seem to be obtained by larger ISP or Mobile Wireless providers that
>> >> are already well known adopters of IPv6. Such providers would of course
>> >> have no issues meeting the standards of the Draft Policy.
>> >>
>> >> What I would like to find out is what percentage are in the position of not
>> >> having any IPv6 in place, and therefore might be adversely affected.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Albert Erdmann
>> >> Network Administrator
>> >> Paradise On Line Inc.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 13:40 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections based on
>> >>> the argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on their own
>> >>> network”.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this proposal therefore I
>> >>> believe these kind of objections have been refuted multiple times already.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I cannot speak for the entire AC, but this AC member (at least until the
>> >>> end of the year) is well aware of your position on the matter. I do not,
>> >>> however,
>> >>> share this opinion.
>> >>>
>> >>> Insisting that people make an IPv6 address pingable in order to receive
>> >>> IPv4 resources via transfer strikes me as an effort to push those who do
>> >>> not wish to
>> >>> do IPv6 into doing so.
>> >>> As such, it is about forcing someone to do something on their own network.
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a valid objection to the policy. It may be an objection the
>> >>> community decides to overrule or dismiss, but it is an objection,
>> >>> nonetheless.
>> >>>
>> >>> You may not like that objection, and that’s fine. You’ve said so, and
>> >>> we’ve heard you.
>> >>>
>> >>> With regards the proposal this community has the right to estabilish
>> >>> whatever conditions for the RIR registration related stuff it finds better
>> >>> for the RIR and the Internet to continue working healthy in the
>> >>> region.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This is also true, but the people you are dismissing because you don’t
>> >>> like their objections are just as much members of the community as you
>> >>> are. They have
>> >>> every right to object to the policy on whatever basis they feel is in
>> >>> their best interests or that of the community.
>> >>>
>> >>> For example the increasing cost imposed to all others by those who
>> >>> wishes to remain in the past and the growing conflicts due to the current
>> >>> scenario are good point for this community to evaluate.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Here, I agree with you. I don’t agree that what is proposed will help
>> >>> resolve that issue. I do think we will have many discussions about how to
>> >>> resolve this
>> >>> particular problem in the coming years.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also I am finding some people having trouble with the mechanism to
>> >>> validate IPv6 is operational and would really like to hear other points of
>> >>> view about more effective way that process can be validaded and be
>> >>> more effective in their point of view.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a very tough question. I think that all of the corner cases that
>> >>> would exist in response to this question are a perfectly valid reason not
>> >>> to
>> >>> inflict this proposed policy on the community.
>> >>>
>> >>> Owen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Fernando
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:06 Brett Frankenberger, <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:55:50PM -0500, ARIN wrote:
>> >>> > On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>> >>> "ARIN-prop-278:
>> >>> > Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft
>> >>> Policy.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19 is below and can be found at:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Policy statement:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In section 8.5.2, add the following language to the end of the
>> >>> paragraph
>> >>> > entitled “Operational Use”:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Such operational network must at minimum include an allocation or
>> >>> assignment
>> >>> > by ARIN of IPv6 address space under the same Org ID receiving the
>> >>> > transferred IPv4 space. Such Org must be able to prove this IPv6
>> >>> space is
>> >>> > being routed by using it to communicate with ARIN.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In the event the receiver provides a written statement from its
>> >>> upstream
>> >>> > that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6 requirement may be
>> >>> waived.
>> >>>
>> >>> Opposed for multiple reasons.
>> >>>
>> >>> First, it should not be ARINs role to dictate the manner in which
>> >>> networks are operated. We have routinely resisted the notion that,
>> >>> for
>> >>> example, spammers should have resources revoked. Now we're
>> >>> proposing
>> >>> to deny resources to networks that decide not to operate IPv6.
>> >>>
>> >>> Second, the proposal is premised on the idea that IP addresses are
>> >>> solely allocated for the purpose of operation on the public network,
>> >>> despite policy being clear that that's not the case. While that's
>> >>> certainly the predominate use case, there is nothing that prevents a
>> >>> private interconnected network from operating on
>> >>> ARIN-assigned/allocated public space without connecting to the
>> >>> Internet. Are we proposing to deny any future transfers for such
>> >>> networks? They would by their nature be unable to prove IPv6
>> >>> connectivity to ARIN (except as a stunt -- see below) and would be
>> >>> unable to get a statement from their upstream (since they would have
>> >>> none) as to the availability of IPv6 connectivity.
>> >>>
>> >>> Third, this encourages meaningless stunts. A network that does not
>> >>> desire to opreate V6 is not going to reconsider that decision as a
>> >>> result of this policy. At best, they will get an IPv6 allocation or
>> >>> assignment from ARIN, route it to one subnet, put a device on it
>> >>> long
>> >>> enough to perform whatever ceremony ARIN requires to prove IPV6
>> >>> connectivity, get their transfer, and then shut it down (or maybe
>> >>> leave
>> >>> it there in case they have to reperform the ceremony should they
>> >>> transfer additional addresses in the future). More likely, this
>> >>> will
>> >>> cause the creation of a new industry: organizations needing to
>> >>> complete
>> >>> an IPv6 connectivity validation to get a IPv4 transfer processed
>> >>> will
>> >>> sign a LOA granting their Ceremony Consultant the right to announce
>> >>> their IPv6 allocation/assignment long enough to complete the
>> >>> ceremony,
>> >>> and their consultant will do all the work necessary to get the
>> >>> required
>> >>> box checked in ARIN's systesm.
>> >>>
>> >>> This will not drive IPv6 adoption. I oppose the use of ARIN or
>> >>> community resources on stunts, and I oppose the creation of a "IPv6
>> >>> Ceremony Consultant" industry.
>> >>>
>> >>> -- Brett
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list