[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

[Edward Lewis]

At 5:32 -1000 4/20/05, Randy Bush wrote:
>>  It is extremely important to realize that organizations, with
>>  responsibilities to their customers and shareholders, will not be
>>  willing to move forward with IPv6 if their v6 allocations will be
>>  tied in to a specific service provider.
>
>but our ipv6 promotion and marketing are not in the major goals
>of the RIRs.  stewardship is.  sometimes there may be a tension
>between the two.  welcome to real life.

I'm missing something here.  This is what I am either assuming or 
think I am hearing:

1) The RIRs require that ISPs be prepared to sign up 200 customers in 
5 years in order to get space (via the policy).  Only ISPs can get 
space.

2) Customers are having trouble with a technology that requires 
putting faith into ISPs, an industry that has proven quite 
economically unstable in recent years.

1+2 seems to imply that supply and demand will have a hard time materializing.

How does IPv6 gain momentum when adopters at the edge of the network 
(customers) can't get space without having to rely on (and pay money 
to) a core infrastructure that has a poor (recent) track record for 
business stability?

(Thinking of a recent discussion of SSH vs. DNSSEC in another forum - 
innovation at the edge vs innovation at the core and adoption rates.)

I understand that from an engineering perspective, IPv6 addressing 
ought to be handled by the ISP (the layer 3 service provider) (- that 
sounds very POTS-like).  But this seems hard to achieve when business 
is considered.  Engineering vs. Economics.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.