[ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy

Hi Marco,

Confirming your understanding, my suggestion is that an IPv4 address 
applicant should show they are _starting to move_ to IPv6 before they are 
assigned a v4 block. This prepares applicants for the 'no v4 is over' brick 
wall coming up in a year or two.

A simple way to show them starting to move to IPv6 is to hold an "IPv6 
Enabled ISP"  status which is well defined and validated by the IPv6 Forum, 
more at http://ipv6forum.com/ipv6_enabled . The rules there are quite 
straight forward: get a prefix, have v6 connectivity and show that a user is 
accessing your prefix, then you pass. As far as I know the IPv6 Forum 
doesn't charge for the validation service, but Latif can comment on this if 
necessary.

Or have the Ripeness initiative formalized with a validation procedure, or a 
mix of the above.

Best wishes,
-Ahmed


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Marco Hogewoning" <marcoh at marcoh.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 9:28 PM
To: "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed at tamkien.com>
Cc: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy

> Hi all,
>
> Just to make the distinction here, the way I understand the original idea 
> poste by Lubos is to change internal business rules to require customers 
> to have IPv6 deployed before they are being assigned more IPv4 space.
>
> Now maybe this could work and since it is a business rule there is nothing 
> prohibiting you from doing this. There is however a chance you will loose 
> a customer to one of your competitors because they don't have such a rule. 
> But in pricipal this does not change anything in exisiting assignment and 
> allocation policies. Your network your rules and as an LIR you can always 
> decide to not assign addresses.
>
> The suggestion being made by Ahmed however does hint about changing the 
> IPv4 assignment policy to require some form of 'IPv6 readiness' before an 
> end-user can get any new or additional assignments, am I right ? The 
> latter case requires the involvement of the folks from the Address Policy 
> WG, so I please be clear which direction this should go.
>
> Maybe as a first step we can try and work out what the exact requirements 
> for calling somebody 'ipv6 ready' would be.
>
> Grtx,
>
> MarcoH
>
> On 6 mei 2010, at 16:06, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
>
>> This is a good policy and it should help move customers to IPv6 in an 
>> orderly manner. We are having a similar discussion on the IPv6 Forum 
>> mailing list.
>>
>> For validation, other than the Ripeness initiative, there are programs 
>> already in place by the IPv6 Forum that validate ISPs and web content 
>> owners for v6 readiness.  If customers pass the tests they place the logo 
>> on their website and get listed on the Forum's IPv6 Enabled list.
>>
>> I suggest RIPE uses this resource (as well as Ripeness) for validating v6 
>> compliance before issuing v4 address blocks. More at 
>> http://www.ipv6forum.com/ipv6_enabled/
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ahmed Abu-Abed
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Lubos Pinkava" <lubos.pinkava at casablanca.cz>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 3:48 PM
>> To: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
>> Subject: [Bulk] [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our 
>>> customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I 
>>> would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback.
>>>
>>> We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since 
>>> 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In 
>>> our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth.
>>>
>>> What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is 
>>> this:
>>>
>>> - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 
>>> assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before)
>>> - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have 
>>> active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning)
>>>
>>> There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own 
>>> specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 
>>> adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go 
>>> through company processes.
>>>
>>> If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice 
>>> document backing up our work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this subject?
>>>
>>>
>>> Lubos Pinkava
>>> Casablanca INT s.r.o.
>>
>