| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Tom, I appreciated your feedback - thank you for some well-reasoned points.Your response highlighted for me that while we as an industry are giving some attention as to how to get networks *onto* IPv6, I'm not sure that much thought has been given as to how we will ultimately get them *off* IPv4. What will be the criteria identifying when a network can be connected to the Internet only using IPv6, without any IPv4, and be confident of at least > 95% connectivity? In what year will this point be reached?
One danger that I see in reserving a lot of IPv4 addresses to enable IPv6 network connectivity without a clear exhaustion or sunset date is that it may in fact remove industry incentive to move off IPv4 - and I don't think we should be encouraging perpetual dual-stacking in the Internet.
[For example, we seem to be assuming that the responsibility IPv6->IPv4 translation lies with a new edge or stub network that is otherwise IPv6. However, if IPv4 is ultimately to be removed, it seems to me that there needs to come a point (when the deployment of IPv6 is substantial) where it becomes the implied responsibility of the legacy IPv4 networks (or their transit providers) to do IPv4->IPv6 translation. Otherwise, the IPv4 networks would be able to sit there for ever and just say "well, *we* don't need to change - we've been here for all these years and everyone has to connect to us as we are!". I admit that I don't immediately perceive what possible changes in market conditions would enable such a transition from the first state to the second.]
All that said, I have indicated in my previous emails that I would be more sympathetic towards proposals that explicitly linked IPv4 allocations to IPv6 planning (especially one that effectively supported multiple IPv6 hosts per IPv4 address). I do not believe prop-062 does this - it implies an intent towards that, but it does not actually specify any direct association between an applicant's IPv6 status and an IPv4 allocation, and I suggest that there is a lack of a critical assessment as to why a uniform allocation of a /22 is the best approach.
The type of issues I believe should be considered by an IPv6-focused proposal would include: - A specification of the IPv6 and general criteria on which the IPv4 allocation would be dependent. - A discussion of the criteria governing the appropriate size of an IPv4 allocation - A discussion of the amount of space that should be reserved for this proposal, with the reasoning behind that amount (assumptions, forecasts, etc.). - A sunset clause - a date after which any remaining addresses would be made available for allocation by justified request. This could be a far-away date like 31 Dec 2020 or longer - if we get it right, then no one will want IPv4 addresses after the nominated date, and if we get it wrong there should be plenty of time to change the policy.
(It's just as well that the proposal deadline for APNIC 26 is past, or I'd be in danger of having to write up such a proposal! :-) )
One idea that has occurred to me is that maybe APNIC should not allow members to directly request addresses from the reserved IPv4 space associated with such a revised proposal, but instead should only make such IPv4 addresses optionally available as part of an IPv6 address request. (In other words, there would be no further IPv4-only allocations from the time of activation of the proposal, only IPv6-allocations with some IPv4 addresses.) I admit I haven't had time to think through whether this is a good or bad idea.
Regards, David
