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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Is this the correct list to monitor:

https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/

Albert

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Fernando Frediani wrote:

> 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://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.
>