[ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions

[Phil Howard]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:12:14PM -0800, David Kessens wrote:

| The spirit of the policy is that you should be able to get a
| significant allocation of ipv6 addresses if you are serious about
| deploying ipv6 for you and a significant number of customers
| (whether you start with tunnels etc. is irrelevant).

Larger companies (who in fact are more likely to have greater numbers
of customers to deploy it to) are probably less inclined to do it
because they operate more on a verified demand basis.  If their
customers want it, they will find a way to deliver.  If not, they
won't.

So are there any customers demanding it?

Smaller businesses are more likely to take the risks and start doing
the deployment.  Some want to be first to market and try to get some
market share out of it.  Some might just want the eliteness of being
and early adoptor.  Limitations on how many customers they are going
to have in the next year shuts a lot of them out.  Some of them don't
even have those numbers on IPv4.

And the customers are still not demanding it.


| People who just want to try out ipv6 don't really need an ipv6
| allocation from ARIN - they can either go the 6bone route or get an
| allocation of ipv6 addresses from an upstream or befriended party (I
| can help you out if you want :-)). 

I can't speak for others, but I do know I have no interest in trying
it beyond what I've done already.  I'm not connected to 6bone and have
no intention to ever do so.  I know how to make my Linux/BSD machines
do it.  I'm sure with the right loads, I can make the routers do it.

What my issue is right now is what's going to be the trigger to make
me go do more with it.  I can say that a permanent allocation is one
such way.  But the kind of services I do don't even classify as an ISP
in the sense ARIN sees it because I'm not doing any reallocation of IP
space to do what I do (in my business plans for 2003, my new customers
will be getting their IP space from their access provider which is not
me, and in most cases its DHCP assigned IPv4).

I'm not making any demands of my upstream to deploy IPv6 because I have
no need for it.  They aren't even thinking about it.  They also happen
to be looking to me for technical advice (I expect to actually configure
the deployment for them when ... or if ... they ever get to it).  And I
know it won't happen until either there's a cutoff date for IPv4 looming
or customers are demanding IPv6.


| And if you ask me what is the biggest problem in the policy right now
| ?!? That are probably small entities that have a need to multihome.
| The question is whether is is a problem with the policy or with the
| the fact that scalable multihoming is an unresolved issue (just like
| with ipv4 - there is really nothing new here).

I would fully agree.  I don't need more address space.  I need stable
address space, multi-homing, and to qualify to get those without having
to take more address space to do it.


| The second issue that I see is midsize businesses (I purposely don't
| define what midsize actually is) who really would like to have
| numberportability and who actually deserve it (in my opinion :-)).
| Renumbering is a little easier with ipv6, but still a pain and the
| cost of renumbering can be quite significant if you are bigger than a
| small household or small business.

There will remain many issues in renumbering, including the authoritative
DNS server issues.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------