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

Michael B. Williams Michael.Williams at glexia.com
Mon Jan 13 15:09:22 EST 2020


Completely disagree with any attempt to force ipv6 adoption by conditioning
IPv4 on it.

These should remain seperate.

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 06:34 Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:

> 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
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/100+Ashford+Center+North,+Suite+110,+Atlanta,+GA%C2%A0+30338?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200114/22585ac4/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list