[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes

[John M. Brown]

-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Michel Py
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:21 PM
> To: Thomas Narten; Member Services
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
> 
> 
> Thomas / folks,
> 
> > Thomas Narten wrote:
> > I have some comments on this proposal.
> > [large snip]
> 
> I agree with Thomas comments. More specifically:
> 
> > Per above, I don't have a big problem with waiving fees, if 
> the fees 
> > are considered to be an excessive burden. But I'd like to 
> understand 
> > that better. My understanding is that that the fees associated with 
> > getting a /32 are relatively low, and are a small fraction 
> of the $$ 
> > that would be required to provide a production IPv6 
> service. I'd like 
> > to understand more how the existing fees are barriors to 
> getting IPv6 
> > space and providing IPv6 service.

People already own the gear.  v4 production services pay for it.

v6 is a niche (speaking ARIN region)

if it wasn't then we would see Sprint and UUNET trying to SELL it
today, yet you can't give them money for v6.  They don't have it,
ergo its not a real service, product or something thats "production"
(flames begone)

 
> I concur. Furthermore, I would say that if one can't fork out 
> this kind of fee, I would doubt that one has the necessary 
> resources to provide real production services. I do not like 
> the idea of barriers built on money, but the other side of 
> this coin is that I have no problem with a fee that weeds 14 
> year-olds with a cable modem and a free tunnel broker out of 
> the production IPv6 ISP business.

Then you are not aware of the true market place and are only thinking
in terms of the large providers.  I have 4 ISP clients today that would
be happy to start working on v6 services.  And their gear supports it
v4 services paid (paying) for the gear.  v6 has no $$ income attached.


> >> 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
> >>   a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> >>   criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> >>   micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> >>   is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> >>   shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
> 
> I don't think this is a mistake; I think this is a 
> catastrophe. This would be the creation act of the IPv6 
> swamp. As much as I would like to have my own /48 PI block 
> for home and have it appear in the global routing table this 
> does not scale.

So because we 'think' there will be a massive problem down 
the road we are limiting the deployment of the technology 
today??

I remember when I taught IP routing at 3com in 97 or so (hmm
six years ago), the standard pitch was.  IPv6 will be out
in a year or two and then there will be a fast migration to
it.

6 years later, we still aren't even there.  There aren't even
v6 AAAA's in the root.

v4 was/is different.

> In the long run this would be counter-productive anyway. 
> Let's say that I get a micro-allocation now, no problem as my 
> router won't choke on 500 routes; but if in the long term if 
> I have to buy the megabucks model and the DS3 that comes with 
> a million routes BGP4+ feed, I'm no better than I am today.

In the long term there might actually be v6 services.  I'll gladly
take a micro today, and deal with changes later.




and please strip my name off the bloody CC's.  Its a PIA to get 2
to 4 copies of the same message and all the layered replies.  Just
ship it to the list.

john brown