Subject: IPv4 to IPv6 Migration Incentive Address Space proposal

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:20:29 +0200

Have people here looked at this? It's "interesting".

http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal.html

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:58:56 +0100

> http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal.html

Interesting in the direction that it has been shot down already and not
officially proposed.

On the PPML list various people have already commented against it.
Mainly because the people who do not want IPv6 address space really are
not going to use it suddenly when they get it force-fed. Also 6to4
already allows those folks to have huge amounts of IPv6 addresses.
Fortunately there is a limit to only allow 2002::/16 to be announced.

Long list of arguments agains the above one:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-June/007543.html

See http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-June/thread.html for more
arguments against and only few minor supportive ones.

Another proposal made, but by Owen DeLong, is much more interesting:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-June/007585.html

short: allow legacy holders to get 5-year free IPv6 space when they turn
legacy space into ARIN-maintained space.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:36:33 +0900 (JST)

> > http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal.html

	JPNIC region has been practicing similar stuff since year 2001.
	many of major ISPs have applied to the address space (43.0.0.0/8).

	http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=apnic+ogino+ipv4&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

itojun

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:59:48 +0100

> 	http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=apnic+ogino+ipv4&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

It is quite different IMHO, reading through
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/11/presentations/time-limit-prop.ppt

it contains a very interesting concept, at least if I understand it
correctly, a wee summary:
 - ISP's can get IPv4 address space based on light justification in
   a very easy and cheap way
 - The allocation given is only allowed to be used for period X time
 - When it expires, the allocation is returned to the free pool.
 - When it expires, the ISP should move to IPv6 or another
   IPv4 block based on the policies at hand.

This allows startup ISP's to get IPv4 space easily and start using it,
gaining customers and then get on a roll completely. Which is cool for
startups, especially the "move to IPv6" portion.

At least that is how I understand from the slide-set. (Correct me as I
will most likely be wrong ;)

For existing ISP's or what the ARIN has as "legacy spaceholders" this
won't help much though.

For most RIR regions one simply has to become member of the RIR, which
means one becomes an LIR in most regions, then one can justify address
space and get whatever sizes you want, for IPv6 in general a /32.
Total cost of that ~3k initially, and maybe 1k yearly, which should be
only a very small portion of cash that one has to invest in a startup
ISP anyway comparing to overhead like people/hardware/transit/etc etc.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:13:33 +0200

> http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal.html

I'm afraid well-intentioned initiatives like this which have the  
potential for significant problems down the road are unavoidable in  
the current IETF/ICANN/RIR address management model.

The trouble is that new policies like this are proposed on a weekly  
basis, and once one slips through in one RIR, all the others feel  
they need to do the same thing and the race to the bottom is on.

Now I'm not saying "the only way to get address space is a PA block  
if you have 200 IPv6 customers" is the solution, but at least with  
that in effect we weren't creating an IPv6 swamp while looking for  
what the solution should be. And if everyone who currently has an AS  
has their IPv6 PI block, I doubt we'll see much interest in coming up  
with something good for the long term.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:26:29 +0900 (JST)

> will most likely be wrong ;)

	i think you got the points right.  RIR policy documents are a bit more
	cryptic than RFCs even for me :-)

> ISP anyway comparing to overhead like people/hardware/transit/etc etc.

	caveat: i'm no way professional in RIR stuff.

	i guess the background of the story is that, JPNIC has been (i'm not
	sure if it still is) practicing super-conservertive policy which even
	beats APNIC policy.  yes, i think ARIN is more conservertive than
	RIPE/ARIN, but i could be wrong.  it has been almost impossible for
	us to apply for PI address space if i act as a private entity, for
	instance.  of course i would not be able to get PA as long as i am
	not a certified ISP.  many ISPs are applying for APNIC address space
	to bypass JPNIC policy (so what is the point in having LIR...).

itojun