I have been running dual stack since 2007. Not only do I like to try out
the new technology, but as a Federal Contractor, there has been a
requirement for all networks that interconnect with the Feds to have IPv6
in place. They have also had a purchase requirement for technology that
all new purchases of network equipment must also be able to run IPv6.
Somewhere around 5 years ago, enough internet resources have AAAA records
to the point that now more than half of my total traffic goes via IPv6. It
is also faster than IPv4, since I do not have to NAT IPv6.
I keep hearing from those who do not want IPv6, that it is a failed
protocol. However, since IPv6 is the protocol that carries over 1/2 of my
internet traffic, I would have to strongly disagree.
I do agree that the community does not yet appear willing to impose an
IPv6 requirement in any form. I tried writing a proposal to require those
who were receiving transfered IPv4 resources to have IPv6 in place, unless
it was not possible to receive IPv6 from their upstream.
Based on the responses, as of about 3 years ago, it seems evenly divided
as to that proposal, which would have applied ONLY to those receiving
transfered IPv4 resources.
During this discussion, Michel appears to be one of the few that is so
strongly opposed to IPv6, that he is against ARIN having any policy to
promote IPv6. This appears to include the current policy for those with
an RSA to only charge for the larger of the IPv4 and IPv6 holdings.
Just wondering if there are others that are so opposed to promoting IPv6?
Been thinking of bringing out the proposal again, and see if it will come
closer to passage.
I always hear that IPv6 is a failure. A protocol that is the majority
protocol on a dual stack network does not in any way seem to be a failure
to me. I would love to hear the exact reasons why IPv6 is felt to be a
failure.
Lack of address space in IPv4 is a problem that can never be solved with
IPv4. IPv6, with its onc size LAN design and end-to-end design is so much
easier to bring new technologies to, and I fail to understand other than a
desire to remain in the past, WHY so many people are so much against it.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, John Curran wrote:
On 19 Sep 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py <[email protected]>
wrote:
John Curran wrote :
Michel - Organizations with a registration services plan don’t pay
any separate ASN maintenance fees so your
previous total of $300 annually ($150 for the /24 + $150 for ASN
maintenance) will now be $250 annually in total.
I probably missed something, but the registration services plan did not
make sense to me earlier. When I added it up, it was cheaper to pay
separately.
Michel -
An end-user organization with a /24 IPv4 block, /48 IPv6 block, and an ASN
previously would have paid $150 registry maintenance for each of those registry
objects (i.e. total $450/year) –
Annual maintenance fees are $150 USD for each IPv4 address block, $150
USD for each IPv6 address block, and $150 USD for each ASN assigned to
the organization.
(If you only had an IPv4 /24 address block and an ASN, then it would be two
objects and $300/year total maintenance fees.)
In 2022, end-user organizations are paying per the Registration Services Plan
schedule, based on the larger of total block size of the IPv4 or IPv6 resource
holdings. This means that any organization currently with IPv4 may obtain some
IPv6 address space without their fees changing.
In 2022, an end-user organization with a /24 IPv4 block, /48 IPv6 block, and a
single ASN would pay based on the "3X-Small” category at $250/year (and the
same amount if they only had the IPv4 /24 address block and the single ASN and
no IPv6.)
If you have any questions, you can log into ARIN Online and view your 2022 fees
under the new schedule.
(Note that you can even add a small IPv6 block to that and still
not see any annual fee change...)
Nice try, but I'm not falling for it. As I said earlier, I don't think
that ARIN should be in the business of incentives to deploy IPv6.
ARIN’s registry services reflect the state of the community by both
facilitating and encouraging IPv6 deployment – but there is no requirement for
IPv6
deployment. If community-developed registry policy changes in the future to
require IPv6 deployment in some manner, then ARIN will enforce such
requirements, but again, no overall requirement to deploy IPv6 exists at the
present time.
Best wishes,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
