[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

[John M. Brown]

what is temporary ??

why temporary ??

why not allow 6BONE to continue ??

Current policy prevents end user orgs to get v6 space.

Calling my local Verio, UUNET, Sprint providers resulted
in a great big HUH, when I asked them for IPv6 space, and
a further HUH, when I asked them to provide a native IPv6
connection...

Given that the "core" isn't selling access to IPv6
the edge isn't going to start using it anytime soon.

But, if the Edge could get IPv6 space then we may see more
people wanting to use the space, and this would create a 
market for transit vendors to sell v6 based connectivity or
services.

We have the great chicken and egg, neither are hatching in ARIN
space at this time.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of william at elan.net
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:13 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> 
> 
> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock is 
> proposing, I just 
> think it should have been done slightly differently. But if 
> nothing else, 
> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small or no charge to 
> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be clear 
> from the 
> start that such allocations would be temporary and not like 
> swamp space...
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
> 
> > That is what 6bone was for - to help indviduals develop new 
> protocol 
> > and
> > adapt it. Its unfortunate it was decided to discontinue the 
> project, 
> > instead RIRs should have donated some resources to keep it running.
> > What should have been done is to have RIRs allocate special 
> block (from 
> > each RIRs allocation) to 6bone and have 6bone then allocate 
> to individuals
> > from it with 6bone becoming LIR for all practical purposes. 
> Its possible 
> > RIRs could have also acted as agents for allocation 
> purposes on behalf of 
> > 6bone but I do not believe RIRs should directly be 
> allocating in the same 
> > manner swamp space was allocated by internic before.
> > 
> > And even now I think RIRs (ARIN in particular, RIPE and APNIC are 
> > already
> > doing some) should do more to get involved in encoraging 
> adoptations of 
> > ipv6. Instead of trying to decide what schedule to adopt, 
> ARIN should 
> > instead be using ipv4 money to compensate (up to some set 
> amount that 
> > ARIN board should decide on) ipv6 related expenses (which I 
> do not think 
> > are large at all) and not only that but to encorage 
> companies to use ipv6 
> > (i.e. for example send letters or brochures to members & 
> subscribers 
> > about availability of ipv6 and need to change to new ip 
> standards for 
> > future, etc). What is being done now with extension of no 
> charges for 
> > ipv6 is good, but the way it sounds is "we do it free for 
> now, but just 
> > wait couple more months and we'll be happy to charge you for it".
> > 
> > And  remember - it will not matter what schedule you adopt, 
> in reality
> > ipv6 will be flat-rate for all practical purposes. Even now 
> ARIN says they 
> > get over 80% of revenue from smallest ip blocks - just 
> imagine what this 
> > number will be when ipv6 is used commercially everywhere!
> > 
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > 
> > >     > And last of all - just give them away to anyone who 
> wants them.  No need
> > >     > to be a subscriber.  You might find they'll move 
> faster that 
> > > way.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I think that if there were some sort of 
> > > no-recurring-fees-for-early-adopters sort of thing it would get 
> > > things moving a little more...  Honestly, the way it worked with 
> > > IPv4 was that the addresses got into the hands of the 
> _individuals_ 
> > > who were smart enough to do something with them, and then the 
> > > individuals pushed them into companies and service providers.
> > > 
> > > If we don't have some way for smart people (not corporations with 
> > > budgets) to get v6 address space, we stay stuck in the 
> > > chicken-and-egg position.
> > > 
> > > This doesn't decrease RR revenues, since the people who'd pick up 
> > > address space that way wouldn't be dues-payers otherwise.
> > > 
> > > I mean, imagine a situation where a smart person's alternative to 
> > > running a NAT on their home DSL was to run v6 behind 
> their home DSL.  
> > > That would get things moving.
> > > 
> > >                                 -Bill
> > > 
>