Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the v6 requirement

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All LIRs that have v6 assignments have absolutely huge ones. I don't see why 
having ipv6 is a problem for anyone. If it is then they've got other more 
serious issues to deal with

Having ipv4 is a necessity for the foreseeable future, though there are ways to 
handle the translation and transition

Regards 

Michele 

Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight
http://Blacknight.tel

Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity

On 23 Dec 2010, at 17:47, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 
> On 12/23/10 10:17 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> This is good news. Thanks, Eric.
> 
> If the rational for the v6 requirement is to ensure that applicants have an 
> operational necessity for v6 arising from v4 exhaustion, then the rational is 
> adequately addressed by the availability of PI CI space during a transition 
> period of three or so years.
> 
> If the rational for the v6 requirement is to ensure some other goal, and one 
> I've encountered several times is "to ensure that the next billion users, who 
> will be only on v6 address provisioned devices, will be able to ...", then 
> the availability of PI CI space is irrelevant, as are the existing resources 
> on the existing v4 assets (the web as it currently exists, independent of 
> what name spaces are available to provide names to the resources) and the 
> existing users.
> 
>> So If I get this straight -- one of the DAG changes we can suggest
>> (for suitable applicants) is a waiver from the contractual requirement
>> of operating in "post-exhaustian" mode.
> 
> If the first rational is why the v6 requirement is in the DAG, then yes, and 
> the waiver is for some reasonable transition period, and so not a cause for 
> disqualification prior to delegation, or during the transition to delegation 
> period. The request for PI CI space can be "supported by ICANN" for the 
> qualified applicants, and wealthier applicants are free to simply buy v4 
> assets in the transfer market, or make a request for PI CI space 
> independently.
> 
>> For practical reasons I'm trying to separate out the generic toolkit
>> from required DAG changes.
> 
> We still need to get the real rational. If it is "v6 evangelicalism" then 
> there is no hope -- the evangelicals, whether of DNSSEC or v6 or other quite 
> arbitrary requirements not imposed upon any existing registry prefer failure 
> for those not convinced of their beliefs. If it is operational prudence, then 
> a means to be prudent while deferring v6 implementation and the associated 
> costs is available, if 123 is adopted by the RIRs which serve more developing 
> economies than ARIN does.
> 
> Eric
> 
>> - Evan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 December 2010 09:29, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx
>> <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>    Hi,
>> 
>>    Sounds good.
>> 
>>    Will this be formalized in an ARIN policy statement?  And does
>>    this need to go through their  policy approval process?
>> 
>>    a.
>> 
>>    On 23 Dec 2010, at 08:51, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> 
>>     >
>>     > Colleagues,
>>     >
>>     > Yesterday I was able to obtain support from ARIN for new gTLD
>>    operators to be able to receive post-exhaustion provider
>>    independent address space from the reserve proposed for Criticial
>>    Infrastructure (CI).
>>     >
>>     > While this does not assist any new gTLD operator demonstrate
>>    the v6 requirement that is in the DAG, it reduces the possible
>>    impulse for the contractual requirement, which is imposed as early
>>    as when the application is submitted (and "frozen"), or as late as
>>    the transition to delegation, if that impulse is that new gTLD
>>    registries must be able to operate in a post-v4-exhaustion
>>    environment.
>>     >
>>     > Whether the v6 requirement is relaxed from an unconditional
>>    requirement, or made conditional upon the purpose of the applicant
>>    and therefore the presumed address capability of the registrars,
>>    registrants, and name-to-address resolving users, the access to CI
>>    reserved resources is something that needs-qualified applicants
>>    will benefit by, and not have to purchase provider independent v4
>>    address assets in the transfer market, or settle for provider
>>    dependent v4 address assets as a tenant of a hosting operator,
>>    registry technical services provider, or competitor.
>>     >
>>     > One more tool in the assistance toolkit. Post-v4-exhaustion PI
>>    blocks reserved for CI.
>>     >
>>     > The proposal is ARIN-prop-123. Reserved Pool for Critical
>>    Infrastructure.
>>     >
>>     > Next, making the same request to the other regional registries
>>    -- RIPE, APNIC, AfriNIC, LACNIC.
>>     >
>>     > Eric
>>     >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> - Evan
>