[Chapter-delegates] ARIN IPv4 transfer policy proposal

[Christian de Larrinaga]

The issue that needs addressing is the potential risk that is  
increasing in my view for Internet to fragment.

IPv6 has been standardised to be incompatible with IPv4 and this means  
that transition mechanisms to keep IPv4 and IPv6 on the same network  
are challenging. In fact despite tunnelling transition mechanisms to  
retain a single internetwork we need to run both IPv4 and IPv6. This  
is what is called dual stack. This means having availability of both  
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

So proposals for trading IPv4 addresses are attempts to harness the  
power of market forces to try to flush out currently unused or under- 
used IPv4 addresses that current RIR policies are not able to do.

This is not to delay or create an alternative to deploying IPv6 but to  
make it possible to transition to IPv6 by ensuring there are  
sufficient v4 addresses available to reduce the risk of fragmenting  
the Internet between v4 and v6.

When looking at the discussion on developing address trading models  
one test that might be useful is to check if the proposal supports  
deployment of addresses in IPv4 tied to a corresponding deployment of  
IPv6 too.



Christian de Larrinaga



On 26 Feb 2008, at 15:16, Marcin Cieslak wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Seems like ARIN is discussing an interesting policy on IPv4 address  
> trading:
>
> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_2.html
>
> Commentary: "Could IP address plan mean another IPv6 delay? -
> Proposal to allow IPv4 address trading could prolong Internet upgrade"
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/021308-ipv6-delay.html
>
> What's your opinion on this?
>
> -- 
>             << Marcin Cieslak // saper at saper.info >>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates