[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments
Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz
Wed Apr 20 12:04:53 EDT 2005
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
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
(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
If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
More information about the ARIN-PPML