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

[Mury]

> > Mury wrote:
> > Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout
> > of IPv6?
>
> As a matter of fact, I do.
> http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-py-mhap-intro-00.txt
> (and a lot of other things as well on the same web page and ML)

So, you are saying it's a protocol problem and not a policy problem.  This
link has nothing to do with ARIN policy.  If you believe that it's a
protocol problem then when do expect it will be ready for people to use
and try things with?  At that time do expect it to just take off or will
there need to be a gradual test and rollout period?  Do you believe that
people testing your MHAP design should be given some leeway with ARIN to
accomplish that evaluation and testing?

If the AC and the BOD beleive the same, then why do they even have an IPv6
policy?

> > The negative comments directed at my proposal never
> > contain any alternative suggestions.
>
> The ARIN public policy mailing list, as far as I know, is to discuss
> policy, not solutions.

I'm not sure if you are saying that you didn't provide a suggestion,
because your suggestion is a solution and not a policy, or if you are
saying something else.

If you think that IPv6 is not ready for deployment, even if that
deployment is largly experimental, then that should be reflected in a
policy or more specifically the lack of one.

> > The fact is IPv6 is not being deployed. Why?
>
> Not because the policy is not good. Because the protocol is unfinished,
> which combined with other factors leads to the most important reason
> that there is zero customer demand.

Then the policy is bad.

And just for the record more than a couple people on this list, which has
a very low contribution rate, have expressed the desire to get IPv6 space.
So, there is some demand that is not being met.

Of course, it is up for debate whether that demand should be met or not.

Ironically, we took 3 phone calls in the last 2 weeks from people wanting
IPv6 space.  There is some demand.

> > What's worse, some extra admin work and *possibly* some
> > wasted IPv6 addresses (swamp), or to continue using IPv4
> > for another 10-20 years?
>
> The sad truth is that in North America today I have zero use for IPv6.
> As a customer or a netizen, I don't have a reason to upgrade. This is
> not because the ARIN policy is flawed, this is because of a combination
> of factors such as sluggish connectivity, IPv6 services inexistent or
> not better than IPv4, lack of a multihoming solution, etc.

Chicken or the egg?

You have no use for IPv6 because no one has IPv6 space with which they can
develop applications for you to use.

The goal of the policy revision was to get more IPv6 space into people's
hands to experiment with.  It's not going to open a floodgate.  99% of the
people out there don't even know what it is, and 1% of that 1% knows any
of the specifics.  If it did get out of control, AND if that was deemed to
be bad, the policy could be changed to discourage use, yet leave those
early adopters with the promise that they are good for a few years.

Really, to sum things up, the policy as it stands is doing nothing.
Either make the decision to not allocate IPv6, because it isn't ready yet,
or make the policy such that it encourages use for those willing to take
some chances with it.

If nothing else, the ambigous language regarding the 200 host requirement
needs to be struck.

Mury