<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3354" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This doesn't have to be this difficult or
complicated. Every IPV4 request should also get a /xx if IPv6 if it does
not already exist. There should be no requirement to use or route the IPv6
block. The end user can use it as PI, PA, whatever they want, or not at
all. If /xx is a /32, or even a /34, there are very few organizations (on
a global scale) that will actually utilize a significant percentage of an IPv6
/32. So we give people too many IPv6 addresses.. what is the
problem?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Excess route advertisement is simple.. if you are not
going to publicly route it, don't advertise it. If you don't advertise it
then it doesn't consume a slot. To my mind this is the only
distinction between IPv6 public space and IPv6 private space. If you are
going to route part of your block and not another part, advertise the whole
block (or one contiguous block) in one aggregate statement, and access list at
your edge the parts of the advertised block you do not want to route.
This minimizes route slots consumed and gives you complete control over how you
want to utilize your IPv6 block without having to deal with any authority.
It also makes routing "private" space between peers, or inter-area tunnelling
trivial.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>IPv4 requests are going to get tougher. Simple.
There is no policy that will guarantee availability of IPv4 space to everyone or
anyone forever. When it is gone we cannot manufacture more. Well, we
can, by adding more bits to the address space.. hmm.. that sounds
like IPv6</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Every host does not have to be dual stack.. only your
edge hardware needs to be dual stack.. you can translate at your edge if
needed.. there is facility built in to IPv6 for v6/v4 one to
one translation by prepending the IPv4 address with your IPv6 network
segment.. voila, it routes and there was no internal renumbering..
Cisco hardware does this today.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=477041518-17072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net
[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] <B>On Behalf Of </B>heather
skanks<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:46 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Chris
Grundemann<BR><B>Cc:</B> ARIN PPML; Lee Dilkie<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[arin-ppml] Linking IPv4 allocations to IPv6<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Chris Grundemann <<A
href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</A>> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR>
<DIV class=Ih2E3d><BR></DIV>I think that there could be some compromise
reached between forcing<BR>every node on someones network to be dual stacked
and just giving out<BR>ipv6 space to everyone with no requirement for
use.<BR><BR>Maybe (as you suggest) ARIN should give out a /32 (or other block)
to<BR>every AS, no questions asked. Then, based on the knowledge that
they<BR>have the v6 space, you build some requirements for requesting more
v4<BR>space. I think most will agree that requiring every host to be
dual<BR>stacked would both provide the most benefit and also be
virtually<BR>impossible to enforce. Maybe instead, the requirement
should be<BR>simply advertising the v6 block. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Are you suggesting give out /32 PI to every AS? <BR><BR>If
so:<BR> Please don't add 40-50k routes to the global internet routing table
if people aren't actually using them. <BR> You might want to make a
clarification that you verify that the ASN is still in use and the organization
actually wants PI vs PA - before assigning it a /32. <BR><BR>If doing this
through PA is also acceptable - you'd have to give larger allocations to
ISP's. Their actually are some organizations that do not want to obtain
and maintain their own IP space. <BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">This
would require the organization<BR>to get some sort of ipv6 transit service and
would thus encourage them<BR>to actually utilize it. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>No it would encourage them to route it - which is not the same as using
it. <BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">It
would also help push the demand for v6<BR>transit. Another possible
requirement is that the organizations<BR>public website have a AAAA record
from the previously assigned /32 (or<BR>whatever size block). I think
that these two requirements are easily<BR>measurable and would noticeably
affect ipv6 adoption rates.<BR>
<DIV class=Ih2E3d></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>This last idea, is not *so* bad ..in that it gives you a means to
measure - and is along the lines of the 'demonstrate you are making some effort
with v6' requirement that's been suggested. However it pushes enforcement
to the part of the cycle when they come back for IP's. <BR><BR>Some
considerations.. <BR><BR>I ask for IPv4 <BR>I get IPv4 + IPv6 and get told to
put our public website on IPv6 as well<BR>I come back for more IPv4 - and then
what? <BR>Do I get denied because I have enough IP's with IPv6?
<BR>What if my public website is available on v6 -- but I want more v4 for my
customers?<BR>Do I get denied because my public website isn't reachable by an IP
in the IPv6 allocation I got? <BR>What if it's reachable on some other
IPv6 IP?<BR>What if I contract out my public website to some company who doesn't
do IPv6 yet despite all my requests for them to do it... and the IP's I'm asking
for are for my corporate network, or my customers? I have to change
webhosting vendors in order to be able to have my website on v6, in order to be
able to get more IP's for the rest of my
business?<BR><BR> </DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>