[ppml] back to the policy issue again

[Barbara Roseman]

Mury,

The current policy was developed over many meetings and in coordination 
with the IPv6 working groups in APNIC and RIPE. The policy as it stands has 
not impeded adoption of v6 in those regions, and I doubt that it is the 
main reason companies are being slow to move to IPv6 here in the ARIN region.

There is always room for improvement in our current policies. Working 
through the issues is a good thing, but it works best when there is a 
specific goal in mind, such as easing adoption of v6 for small to mid-sized 
companies, or adopting subnet boundaries that conform to a multi-homing 
standard (not yet in existence). Just saying we need to generally change 
the policy to encourage adoption of IPv6 doesn't get us very far along, nor 
will it dramatically change the v6 situation in our region, IMHO.

John Brown has pointed at a distinct issue: the current policy makes it 
difficult for small companies to request v6 addresses without "gaming" the 
application process. He is understandably reluctant to do that.

One specific policy change we might consider is whether the 200 customers 
in 2 years is an unrealistic expectation for early adopters. This issue was 
also raised at RIPE several meetings back, and it was decided that even for 
academic institutions, this might be an acceptable number. Perhaps we need 
to revisit this qualification in light of operational experience.

This is the kind of specific issue we need to explore and discuss to remain 
on topic.

-Barb