[ppml] PIv6 for legacy holders (/w RSA + efficient use)

[Randy Bush]

>> but you deleted the core of my point.  where ipv6 is actually 
>> gaining some deployment, japan, korea, china, ... it has been 
>> heavily subsidized. to date, this looks to have been the only way 
>> to get folk making rational, albeit short term, business decisions 
>> to get on the v6 train.
> I don't like your odds. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to achieve 
> this, but I don't like your odds.

oh, i assure you that i do not like them any more than you do.  but i
have been in the biz for a while, and kinda found that admitting and
dealing with the disgusting crass reality gets me more progress than
pretending it's a more ideal world than it is.

and i really assure you that govt subsidies are not my cup of tea.  but
i gotta look at what has actually worked.  (note that giving large v6
space with purchase of a liter of petrol was tried in asia and failed to
do anything).

> I'd recommend targeting particular US states instead of the federal 
> government.

i have no ideas on how.  way above my pay grade.

> by pushing too early, too hard with a mandate to deploy IPv6 inside 
> the Federal government, we've lost support from the bureaucracy.

i have wondered and worried about this.  the gossip i get is that the
initiative is still moving forward, though maybe not as fast as we might
like, and more strongly in the military than the civilian areas.  but i
am as far from dc as one can get in america, geographically and emotionally.

>> i have no problem with folk getting ipv6 space and looking for a 
>> transit provider.  we were the first provider in the world to offer
>>  it.  smirk.
> Then you'll support Scott's "PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and 
> efficient use" proposal?

dunno how you made this leap to pi, legacy, ...

> I'd sure like to get my network online with IPv6 but the PA space
> you'd provide my multihomed network doesn't really do me any good.

hmmm.  please explain why pa space from one provider announced to both
upstreams will not work?  is it some hidden deficiency in the ipv6
architecture that is not present in ipv4?  'cause it sure works in ipv4.

my experience in the seemingly same pi/pa debates of the early '90s has
not set me up to think that pi space will do anything useful and will
only make a mess in the long run.  somehow "i want" is transformed into
"i need"  is transformed into "ipv6 can not be used without."

the problem with ipv6 deployment is its perceived costs and lack of kit.
 pouring sugar on a stinksys dsl cpe will not make it speak v6.

randy