[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

[John M. Brown]

and for those orgs that are "end sites" that wish to deploy
a v6 network now typically can't.

in talking with a number of national transit providers that
provide service in NM, they don't allocate v6 space to 
end users at this time...   so you have to build a tunnel
to someplace "far" away like Calif..

so you have in affect a non-starter and people that want
to deploy unable to deploy....


the policies are focused on "not repeating v4 swamp" and
other errors.

I'd say that those "errors now" where the key to growth
in the early days.  I'd hate to see the error of today be
stifling the growth of v6.....

john brown

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:58 PM
> To: john at chagres.net
> Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> 
> 
> I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why 
> they could 
> not get space.
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
> On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02  PM, John M. Brown wrote:
> 
> > There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to
> > start building v6 networks.  Some are ARIN clients, most
> > are not.
> >
> > They can't get the space.  We have stalled the system.
> >
> > Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and 
> building.  
> > Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done.
> >
> > john brown
> > former AC member
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of 
> >> Bill Woodcock
> >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM
> >> To: william at elan.net
> >> Cc: 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...
> >>
> >> I'm not for temporary.  I think that's exactly the problem we have 
> >> now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, 
> >> because they know that success means that they have to 
> start paying 
> >> someone else for the privelege of using what they just 
> built.  That's 
> >> not the way things get done on the Internet.
> >>
> >>                                 -Bill
> >>
> >>
> >
>