[arin-ppml] IPv6 Allocation Planning

[Leo Vegoda]

On 9 Aug 2010, at 2:38, William Herrin wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2010, at 2:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> This is an attempt to head off prefix-growth by allowing ISPs to do planning
>>> if they wish.
>> 
>> Why are ISPs not able to plan ahead at the moment?

[...]

> You're kidding, right?
> 
> The current v6 dogma is that we're going to provide ISPs with exactly
> one allocation to the maximum extent possible, so we want to get that
> one right and/or include reserve slack surrounding the allocation so
> that the netmask expands. That's why we haven't organized things as a
> slow start.
> 
> One problem, of course, is that ISPs are used to planning address
> consumption on 6 and 12 month scales, not decades. They have no
> practical experience to guide them with longer range planning.

[...]

> And lest we forget: IPv6 is not currently a moneymaker nor anticipated
> to soon be a moneymaker, so the funding to support any sort of long
> range planning simply isn't there.

Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear. My question was intended to refer to the current allocation policy. 

If I understand your response, you are suggesting that the the issue is not that the policy causes problems for people who want to plan ahead but that ISPs are not sufficiently knowledgable and experienced to do so. I am not sure how changing the way we do a calculation is going to solve this problem.

Regards,

Leo