[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

McBurnett, Jim jmcburnett at msmgmt.com
Wed Jan 8 14:48:36 EST 2003

I would deploy v6 right now if I got my block for free, and could get my providers to jump on.
But I know they won't. I have already asked.  The network engineers at corporate for both of my providers "are testing" it.
Maybe there should be a policy where as if you have a V4 class C, then a V6 equivalent would be free if you moved.

The problems I see are:
Currently I am getting service from 2 ISPs (multi-homed), and for me to use V6, both of them will have to be 
properly setup. One them is multi-homed to ATT and Level 3, the other just changed their primary upstream and moved to ATT also.
Yes, I know my multi-homeing now is not really multi-homing any more.
But until Level 3 and ATT provides V6 to my upstream, I have no prayer to get it without great pains.
I can't imagine tunneling to 6BONE and then setting up all those remote VPN's I have to work with it.

The real problem here is not that people / smaller companies don't want to go to V6, it's that some big providers feel they 
won't have a product (IP addresses) that are scarce enough to make people buy them anymore at the rates they are paying now.

I got a deal, I pay nearly the same for a class c with my upstream as a friend pays for 5 static with bell south DSL.
He pays $60 a month for 5.  Could you imagine what would happen if BellSouth and all those DSL providers had customers with DSL would do if their customers were getting free IP addresses?

And let me say quickly, I am not protecting their Business plan, nor an I giving them an excuse, I believe this is what someone in a management position is seeing. (READ NON-NETWORK PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT)

I guess the real deal should be:  For a true V6 network implementation down to the customer level, the backbone and network provider will recieve (insert some big sized block) for free for X years, such that the provider must allow end users to have the appropriate # of static IP's for free also for the length of the contract.

But even that has problems...

anyway soapbox yielded..

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:53 PM
To: ddiller at cogentco.com
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

waiving the fee is a good thing.

having barriers that prevent people from even being able
to apply is a bad thing.

thus, having it be free (for some period of time) doesn't
mean much to those that can't get the space because of 
other barriers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Dave Diller
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:30 AM
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> > you are asking ARIN to become more involved with their membership 
> > community.  Not something I see them doing any time soon.
> > 
> Seeing as how this is PPML, perhaps you should formulate a 
> "You All Suck A
> Whole Lot" Policy Proposal and have it put to a vote?  Then 
> at least we'd be
> on-topic for once... ;-)
> Personally, I fail to see how waiving the fees is a BAD thing 
> if you are trying
> to promote v6 adoption, which was all the scope of the notice 
> covered.  If one
> year is too short a time-frame for an extension that's one 
> thing that can be
> discussed and "Policy-fied".  Similarly, if there is a sense 
> that the policies
> for Allocs are completely useless, will never work, and 
> should be done over,
> well fine - good luck, get some discussion going, but where 
> were the complaints
> when they were being formulated initially before they were 
> adopted by ALL the
> RIRs?  Seems to be a bit late now...
> -dd

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list