[ppml] early adopter advantage

[Aaron Hughes]

It would however make it easier for providers to start working with their smaller multi-homed customers on adoption.  I do not believe the non-service provider, non-government networks will start dual-stack or migration without push from the community, the providers or some compelling v6 only application.  I do however, believe this is a step in the right direction.

Cheers.
Aaron

On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 10:50:07AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don't think that PI space will help start the drive.  However, I do 
> believe
> that the lack of PI space is definitely preventing the adoption.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> --On October 29, 2005 8:56:29 AM -0700 Benjamin Crawford 
> <bicrawf at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >I agree with Paul.  I think putting off a policy for
> >PI space due to concerns on giving certain special
> >advantages might be a little off based.  If allowing
> >PI space will help start the drive towards adoption of
> >IPv6, it make sense to try to make that available.  If
> >a PI policy is put on the shelf while non-PI
> >alternatives are developed, I think a lot of people
> >continue propagating IPv4 and continue to push out the
> >adoption of v6.
> >
> >-Ben Crawford
> >
> >--- Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>it's been spake several times today that one big
> >>problem with the IPv6 PI
> >>proposal was that it would not scale to the full
> >>IPv6 population, and
> >>therefore we ought to craft a policy that gave no
> >>special advantages to
> >>the early adopters.  MIT and Stanford and DEC and HP
> >>all having "class A"
> >>IPv6 networks whereas China can't get one, was cited
> >>as an example of this.
> >>
> >>another more specific concern i heard today was "if
> >>we allow PI IPv6 space
> >>then there will be no incentive to develop non-PI
> >>multihoming technology".
> >>
> >>i think both of these concerns are misplaced.  if we
> >>want there to be an
> >>IPv6 network economy we're going to have to give
> >>folks what they need to
> >>become early adopters, and if they're asking for PI
> >>IPv6, then we have to
> >>at least listen.  furthermore, the incentive to more
> >>quickly develop non-PI
> >>alternatives for IPv6 multihoming might actually be
> >>higher if there's PI
> >>space being granted, since it's *such* a bad idea in
> >>the long run.  (this
> >>assumes that the primary developers of non-PI IPv6
> >>multihoming technology
> >>will be vendors and registries rather than
> >>end-users; this seems ~likely.)
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>PPML mailing list
> >>PPML at arin.net
> >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >_______________________________________________
> >PPML mailing list
> >PPML at arin.net
> >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
> a forgery.



> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


-- 

Aaron Hughes 
aaronh at bind.com
(703) 244-0427
For public PGP key: finger aaronh at bind.com
Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8
http://www.bind.com/