[arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Mon Jan 13 14:34:04 EST 2020

I completely disagree with any attempt to force IPv6 adoption via IPv4 policy.  The right incentive to go to IPv6 is market incentive (i.e. Customer Demand).  Trying to use policies based on IPv4 from an RIR as force is the absolute wrong way to garner IPv6 adoption.  

As everyone knows, early on there was incentive to use IPv4 because that was the only way to connect to Internet back then.  Once there are enough valuable services and needs met that are available only on an IPv6 platform - customers will demand the switch.  Incentives are good but force is not good for a change of this magnitude.  

Work on the incentive side if you want to help facilitate the switch.  I have yet to have a customer ask us for IPv6 even though we offer it.  My two cents!  😊

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392.0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 1:46 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I believe this is some kind of political correctness way of dealing with this topic. While many support the adoption of IPv6 and recognize the critical need of it for the Internet ecosystem to continue work smoothly and to avoid many conflicts that will arise otherwise, they don't seem to want to offend others colleagues believing this will 'force' them to deploy IPv6. That has never been the case of this proposal.
It was said many times this doesn't force those who wish to remain IPv4-only for whatever time they need.

But let's think of the whole thing. Don't just concentrate on the saying "My network my rules" because that is too simplistic and too vague.
When you operate in internet and in a registry system you must evolve along with others and for the whole thing to keep working in a "interconnected environment", so it is not just about "your rules".

For those who deny IPv6 adoption or even those who feel others are being terribly forced to something I would invite your to think that this all is a question of what problem to choose. "Force" others to something small (really this proposal isn't something that forceful if you think better - it's just another small thing to add up to efforts towards the obvious where the internet must go) or you choose the issue of increasing conflicts that will happen because of the IPv4 exhaustion and that ultimately will end up in this forum. Organizations still dependent of IPv4 (because many others didn't want to offend colleagues who still deny IPv6) that feel they are being treated unfairly, brokers constantly trying to change the rules meet their own interests, companies that may not understand yet the issue forcing to a specific direction to solve their particular problem or even organizations that may choose to sue the RIR because they feel they are being treated unfairly and having their business damaged. Either way they will happen and we have the opportunity to smooth it a bit by adopting this proposal which goes towards the only direction Internet has to go for now and, once again, it is not that forceful.

Lastly I want to invite all that support IPv6 to think also about the morals of what is happening. I don't mean to offend anyone, but in my view it is immoral to all community to keep transferring more and more
IPv4 and not have any commitment to IPv6 as if it was a cosmetic thing. 
This proposal doesn't say organization who are in need of more IPv4 to operate cannot keep transferring them, but just ask these to show some commitment to IPv6.

It was already mentioned in the previous discussions this forum has full rights to establish how the registry is administered and the rules that apply to transfers. There is nothing illegal on that and it's nothing absurd or abrupt, so making this move is a little effort that contributed to something that will happen in a way or another, more smoothy if you choose to support this proposal or with pain if you do not.

Therefore I keep supporting this proposal and would also support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the ARIN wait-list.

Best regards
Fernando Frediani

On 13/01/2020 14:40, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> Frankly, I agree with earlier detractors..
>
> While it may be important to ARIN to push for IPv6 adoption, I don't 
> believe using IPv4 allocation policies as a method to 'force' adoption 
> is a wise or efficient method for encouraging adoption..
>
> I believe you should simply keep both purposes separate.. totally.
>
> There are other ways to encourage IPv6 adoption, and it should be left 
> up to the industry, and not ARIN policy, and it should NOT hamstring 
> those who for one reason or another feel no need to consider IPv6 at 
> this time.
>
> There might be legitimate reasons, that while we may not understand or 
> fathom them, and are important to the person looking for IPv4 waiting 
> lists and/or transfers, but who are we to say..
>
>
>
> On 2020-01-13 9:06 a.m., Andrew Dul wrote:
>> Happy New Year everyone...
>>
>> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it 
>> was clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to 
>> help move this draft forward...  I'm proposing a couple of questions 
>> to see if we can find middle ground here to update the text of the 
>> draft policy.
>>
>> The policy as written today would require organizations who wish to 
>> obtain an IPv4 transfer to complete a limited scope IPv6 deployment.
>>
>> Do you support any IPv6 requirements on an IPv4 transfer?
>>
>> Would you support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the 
>> ARIN wait-list?
>>
>> Do you support different IPv6 deployment criteria that would qualify 
>> an organization for a IPv4 transfer?  (Such as, just requiring the 
>> org to have an IPv6 allocation or assignment from ARIN)  Please 
>> propose different IPv6 criteria that you would support if the current 
>> criteria is unacceptable.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your comments on this draft,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> ===
>>
>> *Current 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.
>>
>> ===
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.arin.net%2f
>> mailman%2flistinfo%2farin-ppml&c=E,1,i7R2iUzjMLMMvrOuH9it4Xcv_k3v8c1A
>> GM3Hie_dYVLVM5PWjf9pR9LEuYNsf2gJUhN9FFsQBeuOTkBhlFlfUp_2o_EtjlFndlb_k
>> vSCvJh0QMuEDA,,&typo=1 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.arin.net%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2farin-ppml&c=E,1,G8dPvbE8wqXWcHcHrKcKpzTfxfhwJBW0FNFa27GCl_xnqCK2tCdJ9eSivtF0NBx-rgjPZ-lCqDmTDnewr2lf-4ndO-HLqr7oAQUSFPvxClR-G39T9slOdGxspJA,&typo=1
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.