> 2. Summary > ----------- I agree with David that we all have a responsibility to each other to keep the network working and endeavour to see dual stacked systems built. If we are ever to be in a position to move to an IPv6 only network then this can only happen after a critical dual stack mass is reached. But I'm not convinced that this proposal is the way to do this. > > > 3. Situation in other RIRs > --------------------------- > > AfriNIC > > The 'IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal' includes a provision that any > network receiving IPv4 addresses during the proposed second part > of the "exhaustion phase" defined in the proposal will also be > delegated IPv6 addresses if they do not have any yet: > > http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005.htm > > ARIN: > > Policy Proposal 125, 'Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires > Dual-Stack' was abandoned by the ARIN AC. The decision is > currently being petitioned for re-inclusion of the proposal for > discussion by the ARIN community: > > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-December/019054.html > > RIPE: > > Policy Proposal 2010-2, 'Allocations from the last /8' includes a > provision that allocations shall only be made to LIRs if they have > already received an IPv6 allocation. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html > > > There is no similar proposal in the LACNIC region. Looking at these policies I'm encouraged that our policy of making IPv6 readily available to APNIC members is a good one. I'd like to think that as we move into the last /8 phase we'd mirror the AfriNIC approach. The IPv4 block being allocated at that point is for transition to IPv6 and so it makes sense to issue IPv6 space if none has already been issued. If we want to make applicants think a little more about this then we could adopt the RIPE approach but given that our IPv6 allocation process is so simple it really wouldn't make much difference. > > > 4. Details > ----------- > > This is a proposal that amends the IPv4 allocation and assignment > criteria to including the following additional criterion: > > - To qualify for an allocation or assignment of IPv4, an > organization should have a viable IPv6 deployment. This is where my real concern lies. David gives a couple of examples of a "viable IPv6 deployment" which leaves us with the question of what other scenarios could be interpreted as "viable". I'm concerned that unless we can come up with clear unambiguous definitions of what is acceptable here we will put the APNIC staff in the very difficult position of having to decide who can have IPv4 addresses and who can't based on ill-defined criteria. I suspect that disgruntled applicants could resort to legal challenges and that's not somewhere we want to go. A number of people including me have expressed the view on this list and elsewhere that "IPv4 is over, finished...." and I think we should recognise this. Our best option is not to keep adding patches and lashups to IPv4 policy in order to get IPv6 deployed - that will start to happen as the economic imperatives bite and not before. Our IPv4 policy needs to remain clear and simple. During the last /8 each organisation will get a /22 (or whatever the size is at the time) for IPv6 transition purposes. I think it would make sense to allocate IPv6 space at the same time if they haven't got any.