[ppml] IPv6 Justifications

[Mury]

What am I missing?

Doesn't my proposal address your needs?

1) It removes barriers for getting the space, whether you are an ISP or an
end user.

2) It removes the costs for a reasonable period of time.

3) It guarantees a resonable length of time to not be subject to current
requirements and future requirements.

4) It has defined end dates for the eased requirements and costs so we
don't end up with the same problem that IPv4 has.

With these revisions what other problems do you have?

Thanks.

Mury



On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote:

> Here Here...
> I agree. John, I know it is too late for a policy proposal for the upcoming meeting, but should we  push this out anyway?
>
> Jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:44 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> >
> >
> > True, but the basis of RIPE-NCC and APNIC is membership.
> > Pay the annual membership fee and get space.
> >
> > in addition those regions have more "uptake" of IPv6
> > compared to the ARIN region.
> >
> > This isn't about RIPE-NCC or APNIC.   Its about ARIN
> > and the policies as viewed from potential members, existing
> > members and those that want to make use of IPv6 space.
> >
> > We are arguing over different points, when the basic point
> > is that.
> >
> > ARIN REGION Members feel the policy for getting IPv6 space
> > is preventing them from doing so.
> >
> > ARIN REGION internet users (non-members and members) are interested
> > in becoming early adopters of IPv6 services and technoloiges,
> > yet the policy prevents these people from getting the integers
> > they need.
> >
> > If we want to see IPv6 start moving, we have to allow people
> > to get the space, use the space, make requests to the backbone
> > providers that they want native transport, etc.
> >
> >
> > Why not allow early adopters, reguardless to if they have ARIN
> > alloc'd v4 space or not, to easily, cheaply get a /35, heck even
> > a /48 would be plenty for these folks.
> >
> > Create an "early adopters micro-alloc" program.
> >
> > a /48 is what, 65535  /64 neworks  ?   Should be plenty to
> > allow early adopters to play with stuff.
> >
> > I'd love there to be the problem of "Route Table Growth" :)
> >
> > Me thinks we are over worrying about the issues of v4 wrt v6.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:29 PM
> > > To: john at chagres.net
> > > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> > >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 03:21  PM, John M. Brown wrote:
> > > > seems unlikely that we will repeat the swamp problem
> > > > since people can't even get the space to begin with.
> > >
> > > I thought RIPE-NCC and APNIC, with essentially the same
> > > policies, have
> > > allocated not insignificant amounts of space.  Is this not correct?
> > >
> > > Rgds,
> > > -drc
> > > (Speaking personally)
> > >
> >
> >
>