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

Brett Frankenberger rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
Thu Nov 7 13:06:15 EST 2019


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


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list