[address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation over?
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Mon Oct 27 14:54:45 CET 2003
One area of address policy that is fairly consistent world-wide is the view that IPv4 address space is scarce and that the policy must be conservative, i.e. the policy must make conservation of IPv4 addresses a high priority. I don't think that's true anymore. On the one hand, we have IPv6 deployed commercially in 3 of the 4 policy regions (Europe, AsiaPac, America) which indicates a continuing trend toward a future time where IPv6 service will be almost as easy to find as IPv4 service. On the other hand, the worst possible outcomes discussed when CIDR was first deployed are not going to happen. For instance there was a fear that the People's Republic of China might want 1/4 of the IPv4 space because they have 1/4 of the planet's population. This has not happened and is now quite unlikely to happen. Therefore, I believe that all the RIRs should jointly do some research to establish a prudent date at which IPv6 will be considered to have reached critical mass so that there will be a significant migration of users from IPv4 to IPv6. Once we set our sights on this date we should set aside a certain amount of buffer in the IPv4 space, and then design our policy to consume the rest of the IPv4 space, not to preserve it. At the same time, this policy shift should be presented as part of a global IPv6 migration strategy because that is what it is. In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the adoption of dual v4/v6 networks as we are today, we should be facilitating the operation of dual v4/v6 networks. We need to create an environment in which the end user can choose whether to use v4 or v6 rather than constraining the end users with our v4-centric regulatory bureaucracy. --Michael Dillon