I have a request for any numbers on IPv6 adoption of those who have
received directed transfers in the last year, or any other available
period.
I have looked at some of the blocks that have been transferred, and most
of them seem to be obtained by larger ISP or Mobile Wireless providers
that are already well known adopters of IPv6. Such providers would of
course have no issues meeting the standards of the Draft Policy.
What I would like to find out is what percentage are in the position of
not having any IPv6 in place, and therefore might be adversely affected.
Thanks,
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 6, 2019, at 13:40 , Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections based on the
argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on their own
network”.
This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this proposal therefore I
believe these kind of objections have been refuted multiple times already.
I cannot speak for the entire AC, but this AC member (at least until the end of
the year) is well aware of your position on the matter. I do not, however,
share this opinion.
Insisting that people make an IPv6 address pingable in order to receive IPv4
resources via transfer strikes me as an effort to push those who do not wish to
do IPv6 into doing so.
As such, it is about forcing someone to do something on their own network.
This is a valid objection to the policy. It may be an objection the community
decides to overrule or dismiss, but it is an objection, nonetheless.
You may not like that objection, and that’s fine. You’ve said so, and we’ve
heard you.
With regards the proposal this community has the right to estabilish
whatever conditions for the RIR registration related stuff it finds better
for the RIR and the Internet to continue working healthy in the region.
This is also true, but the people you are dismissing because you don’t like
their objections are just as much members of the community as you are. They have
every right to object to the policy on whatever basis they feel is in their
best interests or that of the community.
For example the increasing cost imposed to all others by those who wishes
to remain in the past and the growing conflicts due to the current
scenario are good point for this community to evaluate.
Here, I agree with you. I don’t agree that what is proposed will help resolve
that issue. I do think we will have many discussions about how to resolve this
particular problem in the coming years.
Also I am finding some people having trouble with the mechanism to
validate IPv6 is operational and would really like to hear other points of
view about more effective way that process can be validaded and be more
effective in their point of view.
This is a very tough question. I think that all of the corner cases that would
exist in response to this question are a perfectly valid reason not to
inflict this proposed policy on the community.
Owen
Regards
Fernando
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:06 Brett Frankenberger, <rbf+arin-p...@panix.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:55:50PM -0500, ARIN wrote:
> On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-278:
> Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft
Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19 is below and can be found at:
>
> 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.
Opposed for multiple reasons.
First, it should not be ARINs role to dictate the manner in which
networks are operated. We have routinely resisted the notion that, for
example, spammers should have resources revoked. Now we're proposing
to deny resources to networks that decide not to operate IPv6.
Second, the proposal is premised on the idea that IP addresses are
solely allocated for the purpose of operation on the public network,
despite policy being clear that that's not the case. While that's
certainly the predominate use case, there is nothing that prevents a
private interconnected network from operating on
ARIN-assigned/allocated public space without connecting to the
Internet. Are we proposing to deny any future transfers for such
networks? They would by their nature be unable to prove IPv6
connectivity to ARIN (except as a stunt -- see below) and would be
unable to get a statement from their upstream (since they would have
none) as to the availability of IPv6 connectivity.
Third, this encourages meaningless stunts. A network that does not
desire to opreate V6 is not going to reconsider that decision as a
result of this policy. At best, they will get an IPv6 allocation or
assignment from ARIN, route it to one subnet, put a device on it long
enough to perform whatever ceremony ARIN requires to prove IPV6
connectivity, get their transfer, and then shut it down (or maybe leave
it there in case they have to reperform the ceremony should they
transfer additional addresses in the future). More likely, this will
cause the creation of a new industry: organizations needing to complete
an IPv6 connectivity validation to get a IPv4 transfer processed will
sign a LOA granting their Ceremony Consultant the right to announce
their IPv6 allocation/assignment long enough to complete the ceremony,
and their consultant will do all the work necessary to get the required
box checked in ARIN's systesm.
This will not drive IPv6 adoption. I oppose the use of ARIN or
community resources on stunts, and I oppose the creation of a "IPv6
Ceremony Consultant" industry.
-- Brett
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
