[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

--On April 17, 2006 11:17:15 PM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum 
<iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:

> On 17-apr-2006, at 22:41, David Williamson wrote:
>
>> Oh, and in case it isn't obvious, I'm very much in favor of 2005-1.  I
>> think PI space until such time as it isn't needed (if ever...) is far
>> preferable to nothing deployed and running out of v4 space.  Yes,
>> there's a ways to go before that event, but it's coming soon enough to
>> already look to me like a train wreck.
>
> Question for those of you in favor of the policy proposal:
>
> If you're not ISP / IP carrier:
>
> Are you planning to obtain an IPv6 PI prefix as per the proposed
> policy and then deploy, say, 25% or more of the services you now
> provide over IPv4 over IPv6 using those addresses? And if so, how
> soon would this happen?
>
Wearing my network I operate myself hat:

Yes, and I'm not sure.  Sooner now than it would have happened without
this policy.  It will depend, in part, on when my ISP has v6 routing
enabled.

> If you are an ISP / IP carrier:
>
> How many people that are going to do the above are you going to
> provide IP transit for? And how soon do you expect these people to
> start doing this?

Wearing my dayjob hat: Probably very few, but, I would expect them to
start trickling in in the next 6-12 months.

Owen


-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060417/92104ddf/attachment.sig>