Summary

Several times, we have discussed proposals that would require IPv6 deployment as a condition for obtaining certain benefits. Such proposals have never reached consensus.

This proposal takes the opposite approach: it proposes that IPv4 requests from those who have already deployed IPv6 should be prioritized on the waiting list.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

Several times, we have discussed proposals that would require IPv6 deployment as a condition for obtaining certain benefits, for example, as a requirement for IPv4 transfers. However, we have never been able to reach consensus on such proposals.

This time, the proposal takes the opposite approach: IPv6 would serve as the “carrot", not the “stick”. In other words, entities that have already deployed IPv6 and are on the IPv4 Waiting List would climb up the list, receiving IPv4 resources before those that have not yet deployed IPv6, and in the order in which their deployments occurred.

This approach rewards the efforts of those who have implemented IPv6, as they have likely had to use IPv4 addresses obtained through transfers or sub-assignments from their transit providers, something that typically involves higher costs (compared to the costs if they had their own IPv4 resources), or other challenges such as operational difficulties or the inability to assign public IPv4 addresses to their business clients, resulting in financial losses. This mechanism would allow them to be compensated as soon as possible for these losses or challenges.

Since it is unlikely that resources on the waiting list will be assigned in a few months, or even years, applicants will have enough time to complete their IPv6 deployment and prove it to LACNIC before actually receiving the IPv4 resources. LACNIC will be free to determine the most appropriate method to verify effective deployment of IPv6, which must be completed prior to receiving these IPv4 addresses. Otherwise, applicants will drop below those entities on the IPv4 Waiting List who have already completed and justified their IPv6 deployment. Naturally, any attempt to deceive or falsify IPv6 deployment will be considered a policy violation and may result in the recovery of funds or other penalties that the board may impose.

Current text

11. Policies Relating to the Exhaustion of IPv4 Address Space
(does not exist)

New text
Analyze diff

11.4. Priority on the IPv4 Waiting List for Those Who Have Already Deployed IPv6

Those included on the IPv4 Waiting List under the provisions above will advance their position if they can justify that they have effectively deployed IPv6 and will take precedence over those who have not yet deployed IPv6. The order of applicants who have deployed IPv6 will be maintained on the IPv4 Waiting List according to the sequence of their IPv6 deployments. Applicants who have not deployed IPv6 will be placed at the end of the List, following the existing order of requests.

LACNIC will determine how to verify IPv6 deployments (documentation, network testing, etc.).

Any fraudulent or simulated IPv6 deployment will be considered a policy violation.

Additional information

To our knowledge, there is currently no similar policy in place in any of the other RIRs.

Equivalent versions of this proposal are being developed for all RIRs.

Timetable

-

References

-

Presented at:

-