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

[Mury]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Michel Py wrote:

> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > Mury wrote:
> > If you notice the policy also specifies a date at which the space
> > holder MUST return the space and get new space from their LIR. So,
> > yes it does scale.
>
> Oh yeah? The same way we cleaned the pre-CIDR swamp maybe.
>
> Michel.

Hmmmm,

Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout of IPv6?  The
negative comments directed at my proposal never contain any alternative
suggestions.

The fact is IPv6 is not being deployed.  Why?

It seems to me like we have a couple choices:

1) Essentially hoard IPv6 addresses by not creating a policy conducive to
it's deployment.

2) Change the policy.

What's worse, some extra admin work and *possibly* some wasted IPv6
addresses (swamp), or to continue using IPv4 for another 10-20 years?

Mury