ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Joe Abley jabley at
Wed Apr 7 15:58:15 CDT 2010

On 2010-04-07, at 14:02, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:

> ARIN Region IPv6 fee waiver:
> "In Jan 2008, the Board of Trustees decided to reduce the fee waiver
> incrementally over a period of 4 years. Full fees will be in effect in
> 2012."
> Can you provide rationalization why anyone should automatically get any
> kind of allocation?  Or why legacy holders should "have equivalent
> [IPv6] space under the same terms"  

 - there is no address scarcity with IPv6 (at least not in the sense that there is with v4)
 - there is no significant danger of unconstrained v6 RIB explosion when assigning PI prefix to people who already occupy at least one slot in the v4 table (the problem is constrained to be at worst as bad as we see with v4, which is a known ceiling)
 - there's minimal administrative overhead in assigning PI space to people who are unlikely ever to come back to ask for more
 - what administrative overhead there is is minimal if the process of justification is trivial (or automatic)
 - ARIN says it is in the business of encouraging people to use v6
 - people are more likely to use v6 if they can get v6 addresses easily and cheaply

So automatically assigning v6 addresses to people who have a history of advertising v4 prefixes seems like it has minimal cost (less cost than other assignment strategies, seems to me) minimal risk to the Internet and will encourage people to use v6.

What rationalisation can you provide for not doing this?

[I mention this just because you asked. I'm not trying to turn NANOG into PPML. I'd mention this on PPML instead, but past experience tells me that I have far too much real work to do every day to be able to follow that list, and posting to a list you don't read seems rude.]

(speaking as private individual, not in any other capacity)

More information about the NANOG mailing list