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

[Phil Howard]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 03:52:06PM -0600, Mury wrote:

| 
| 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.

This could be used to argue against the deployment of IPv4.  Why would anyone
want to get on the internet if there's no one else (yet) to talk to.  Well,
clearly there were.  But it wasn't big enough to get the big providers do
what they are doing now.

Of course very few will have an interest in IPv6 right now.  But there will be
enough to get started, and then once they are going, a few more will be interested.
But what I can say with firm conviction is that far more end users will have an
interest than all ISPs together, and far more small ISPs than large ISPs, for
reasons of market demand (specifically the lack of it).


| What the heck is the goal?

I think it's to get IPv6 deployed.  But I don't think that's the question.
I think the question is how to achieve that goal.  And I suspect the policy
of trying to force the deployment from the top down just won't accomplish it.
That's not to say that deploying from the bottom up won't be easy, but that
is how business works.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------