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

[Hannigan, Martin]

Hi Kevin:
 
> 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.
> 

Understood. I'm working from the "have nots" side for further
clarification.
 

> >  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?


25,000 x 2 years. I agree with you both that starting at the
high end makes sense and for all intents and purposes I think
this is the lower side of the high end. My reasoning on the year
adjustment is that it's a simpler redefinement than device count
to gain a squeeze if needed. 

Thank you!


-M<