[ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions

[David Kessens]

John,

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:25:18AM -0700, John M. Brown wrote:
> 
> Some have indicated that we could solve the 200 in 2 year 
> issue by saying we will alloc to dialup users.  Technically
> that seem viable, but I doubt its "spirit" of intent.  If
> I'm wrong, then I'll be setting up my VISP dial service 
> shortly and asking for V6 space only. :)

The spirit of the policy is that you should be able to get a
significant allocation of ipv6 addresses if you are serious about
deploying ipv6 for you and a significant number of customers
(whether you start with tunnels etc. is irrelevant).

People who just want to try out ipv6 don't really need an ipv6
allocation from ARIN - they can either go the 6bone route or get an
allocation of ipv6 addresses from an upstream or befriended party (I
can help you out if you want :-)). 

And if you ask me what is the biggest problem in the policy right now
?!? That are probably small entities that have a need to multihome.
The question is whether is is a problem with the policy or with the
the fact that scalable multihoming is an unresolved issue (just like
with ipv4 - there is really nothing new here).

The second issue that I see is midsize businesses (I purposely don't
define what midsize actually is) who really would like to have
numberportability and who actually deserve it (in my opinion :-)).
Renumbering is a little easier with ipv6, but still a pain and the
cost of renumbering can be quite significant if you are bigger than a
small household or small business.

David K.
---