[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

[Mury]

Here's a couple thoughts from a LIR that is close to clueless about IPv6
address space.  I would venture to guess that I'm not the only one.

To get IPv6 space I need to be able to make 200 /48 assignments within two
years to other organizations.  That's a significant number of assignments,
which isn't the real problem.  The real problem is I'm not going to go
through that work if this address space is not permanent.

Typically ISPs are up to their necks in work.  Most are trying to stay
above water until the market settles down.  My todo list has about 5000
items on it.  I'm not going to spend time working on something that is
possibly going to make my life more difficult in the future.

On the other hand, if I was given some leeway in deployment time and a
promise that it wasn't going to be in vain I would be very interested in
getting a head start on the IPv6 world.  I have made sure that all the
hardware and software we purchase is IPv6 compatible.  I'm willing to make
some changes, but not until it's time.

And in my world it's not time until it's a production ready product.
Temporary is not production ready.

I'm also not going to spend money on something that is either unneccesary
or does not give us an advantage in some way.

Ambiguity will keep IPv6 in university test environments and as something
for the rest of us to think about in the future.

Guarantee the address space will be permanent and provide it for free
until an estimated wide-spread implementation date will be achieved. 5-10
years?  This does not mean that people receiving space next year would
also receive it for free.

Just a couple thoughts from,

Joe Average ISP

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Dave Diller wrote:

> > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their
> > membership community.  Not something I see them doing any
> > time soon.
> >
>
> Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a "You All Suck A
> Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote?  Then at least we'd be
> on-topic for once... ;-)
>
> Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing if you are trying
> to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice covered.  If one
> year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one thing that can be
> discussed and "Policy-fied".  Similarly, if there is a sense that the policies
> for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and should be done over,
> well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where were the complaints
> when they were being formulated initially before they were adopted by ALL the
> RIRs?  Seems to be a bit late now...
>
> -dd
>