I see the exact opposite point of view.
Based on the original policies, there was no directed transfers. Those
who had surplus number resources were supposed to turn them back for
reissue to others who have shown demonstrated need.
Instead, ARIN and other RIR's have adopted a transfer policy that allowed
those with excess IPv4 addresses to do a directed transfer to those who
need more addresses. It also has the effect of allowing those with excess
addresses to profit from this. Original policy except for legacy has
always made clear that the addresses were not property.
ARIN does NOT have to allow this to happen. Instead it is a privilege
granted by the current policy. There are current conditions in place
that require proving of need. There is no reason why a minimal deployment
of IPv6, the future of the Internet should not also be a additional
condition of receiving more IPv4 addresses via the section 8 process.
Lack of IPv6 affects the entire community, and causes us to remain
dependent on scarce IPv4 addresses. More IPv6 deployment is a solution to
this issue, but does ruin many peoples business models.
There is a lot of money to be made in brokering unused IPv4 addresses.
Putting in place even a minimal policy of IPv6 deployment seems to be a
threat to those who wish to profit from these transactions. I also see
that a large amount of the opponents of ARIN-2019-19 are involved in this
brokering and have a incentive to stop a proposal like this in its tracks,
because fuller IPv6 deployment will destroy their business model.
Maintaining someones business model is NOT a good reason to reject this
policy, which supports previous ARIN action in favor of promoting IPv6.
I was forced not to long ago to use IPv6 in networks involving public
transit busses because one of the major mobile carriers decided not to
renew their contract for static IPv4 addresses with my state government
when the contract expired. This carrier would ONLY provide static IPv6
addresses only, and therefore we had no choice but to move the bus network
to IPv6.
I have been using IPv6 for the last 13 years without issue on our network.
I fail to understand the hardship of this draft, except to those that want
to profit from the shortage of IPv4 addresses.
I have the vision that the requirement to have IPv6 should increase over
time. If those around feel that there are going to be games played to
simply to obtain addresses, maybe some measure to ensure continued
compliance with the policy should be added. Maybe have ARIN only use IPv6
for the annual validation emails. Of course this will cause more staff
effort than the simple check of being able to communicate via an assigned
IPv6 block.
If we are ever to move toward IPv6 being the primary protocol, we need to
have the guts to start requiring its use to at least the same extent as
IPv4.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 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@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@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@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
