[ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS: backbones

[Mury]

What is the topic?

It's starting to sound like scrapping IPv6 is or at least delaying the
encouragement of allocating it.

Someone needs to have some sort of plan.  Obviously the plan might change,
but why are we even talking about changing the allocation requirement
policy if no-one has any answers to what I think are some pretty important
questions.

And how the heck did someone come up with the current policy without
trying to answer some of those questions?  How can you possibly have a
policy without knowing what you are trying to accomplish?

If the goal is to simply have people start using IPv6 and hope someone
finds a way, why are there any restrictions at all?  In other words, the
policy should be revised to "Anyone requesting IPv6 space shall receive it
after filling out the basic company info template."

If you hope that IPv6 is going get its momentum from somewhere else,
someone needs to explain that and then derive a policy that encourages
those events.

If IPv6 is no where near being usable by a regular ol' LIR (ISP), than the
policy should be changed to reflect that.  Why give free space out to a
certain group of people that won't be able to effectively use it for
years if not decades.

What the heck is the goal?

Mury


On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 15:29 -0600 Mury <mury at goldengate.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Out of curiousity however, how do you or other experts see the transition
> > to IPv6 happening?  Is there some other strategy other than hoping a
> > handful of early adopters will develop an application that requires IPv6
> > to work and that everyone will want to get their hands on it?
>
> There are still too many unasnswered questions, and you raised a lot of
> them.  We still haven't figured out how to solve the IPv4 multihoming
> problems in IPv6.  But the biggest issue is money.  Especially in the days
> of the internet/telco bust no backbones are going to throw a ton of money
> at an issue that they won't see a benefit from in the short term.  There is
> no consumer demand (or even corporate demand).
>
> But we are getting _WAY_ off topic here, again.
>
> Alec
>
> --
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
>