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

[Mury]

Done.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Sweeting, John wrote:

> Mury, there have been several topics (I believe you have changed the subject
> at least twice :-)) but regarding John Brown's issues it seems to be the
> current policy is not flexible enough to allow the group that he is a member
> of to be as involved in v6 as they would like. Do you think it would be
> possible to draft a policy proposal that would help accelerate the
> deployment of v6? Remember this is the public policy mailing list and not
> the IPv6 wg discussion list. Thanks.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:52 PM
> To: Alec H. Peterson
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Re: Deployment triggers, dates and definitions WAS:
> backbones
>
>
>
> 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
> >
>