[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Kirk Ismay]

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Kirk Ismay wrote:
>>>  Scalability is the downside.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I am all in favour of giving out exactly one IPv6 block (of PI space)
>>>  per ASN, sized appropriately (e.g. sufficient for 10-20 year needs
>>>  at least).
>>>     
>>
>> This makes a lot of sense to me.  How about a policy that:
>>
>> a)  allows any organization to request an IPv6 allocation of a 
>> suitably sized block to so long as they have an existing RSA, ASN and 
>> IPv4 allocation.
>>
>> b) includes a clause that allows legacy IPv4 holders to be able to 
>> also get a block by signing an RSA (carrot approach).
>>   
>
> Kirk,
>
> If by "have an existing IPv4 allocation" you mean a direct 
> allocation/assignment, I think you just described my "PIv6 for legacy 
> holders with RSA and efficient use" policy proposal.  Is that what you 
> meant, or were you referring to reallocations and reassignments in 
> addition to direct allocations/assignments?
>
> -Scott
>
Yes, I agree with your proposal.  It was Brian Dickson's explanation of 
the scalability issues of smaller IPv6 fragments on the routing tables 
that put it into perspective for me.

-- 

Sincerely, 
Kirk Ismay
System Administrator

--
Net Idea
201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512

Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com