[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

[John M. Brown]

Well, my company for one would like IPv6 space.  We don't
qualify as we are not a LIR in the strict sense.

I think my company knows how to setup a v6 stack and route
it, DNS it, and such.

There are 60 some ISP's in the state of NM.  I know of 6
that can't get v6 space under the current policies. Thats
what 10 percent of a small rural state.  And they have
the clue to figure it out and make it work.  They do have
the right host OS's, and could get the right Cisco IOS loads.

By having the space they would then beable to LEARN and develop
CLEW in the use of v6.  This of course would/could lead to more
local knowledge and understanding, which could/would lead to
more people using it....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Scott.Whipple at cox.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:05 PM
> To: john at chagres.net; ddiller at cogentco.com
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> 
> 
> A couple questions and comments.
> 
> How many people out there do you think want IPv6 space but do 
> not qualify?  
> 
> If they don't qualify what makes anyone think they have the 
> expertise or resources to constructively use an IPv6 block?
> 
> I'm not saying that there aren't people out there but I don't 
> remember at the last meeting or any lists that this has been 
> a huge discussion topic.  (like the minimum allocation size) 
> I just don't think there is community felt urgency to deploy 
> v6 space at this time.  Maybe, in the future there will be, 
> at that point policies and guidelines can be reviewed and 
> possibly changed.

Community isn't going to feel urgency to deploy, if the barriers
are to high to start with.  We are all busy enough to not need
more hoops to jump thru to deploy newer stuff.


> I think instead of ARIN encouraging the community to use IPv6 
> space they should be using their resources to educate the 
> community on how to better use their IPv4 space, seeing that 
> this is the most widely used protocol today.  I do think ARIN 
> should educate us about IPv6 but not necessarily ask people 
> to deploy it.  IPv6 may be the wave of the future but I don't 
> believe it's ARINs job to take us there.  It should be the 

Not there job to "take us there", I agree.  It is there job to
LET us take ourselves there and we can't right now.  Its a
non-starter.

> internet community that takes us there.  I also don't think 
> ARIN should hinder the deployment of IPv6 space through high 
> fees and at this point they don't need the money so I support 
> the waiver.  

Money isn't the issue, its the items in sec 5.1.1

> If it is thought that the current policies for 
> an IPv6 allocation hinder then there should be a proposal to 
> change the policies.  However, this is a globally excepted 
> policy and if we change it in the ARIN region we then move 
> away from what the other registries are doing.  I'm not 

Other regions are light years ahead of deploying v6, the policy
makes sense for those regions.

ARIN region is far behind in deploying v6 compared to say APNIC
or even RIPE.

> saying that is a good thing or a bad thing just something to 
> think about.       
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:53 PM
> To: ddiller at cogentco.com
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> 
> 
> waiving the fee is a good thing.
> 
> having barriers that prevent people from even being able
> to apply is a bad thing.
> 
> thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't
> mean much to those that can't get the space because of 
> other barriers.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Dave Diller
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:30 AM
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> > 
> > 
> > > 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
> > 
>