[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites - Revised Text

[Kevin Loch]

Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>  I support the policy for the most part and I would like to say
>  so publicly. I don't have an issue with the device count in 
>  terms of how it's applied in the rationale, but I wonder if you 
>  might not consider extending the time frame of assignment to 2 
>  years instead of futzing the device count since it seems that this 
>  may be the focus? Using the most conservative count I can 
>  think of, I found it difficult to execute something this large, even 
>  as an SP, in one year. I also imagined myself standing up in front 
>  of the funding commitee explaining why I only had a year
>  and I felt I may be unable to justify it in 1 year. 

The intent was that the applying organization has 100,000 capable
devices at the time of the application, or would have them
credibly within one year.  In no way does it require you to actually
complete assignment of 100,000 address in one year.

>  The rationale is to be conservative, but  holding this to only the 
>  Fortune 10 and cellular carriers seems to be slightly tilted towards 
>  detrimental to the adaptation and use of IPV6.

I agree.  what number would you pick to balance conservation
with encouraging deployment?

- Kevin