[arin-ppml] IPv6 Allocation Planning

[Charles O'Hern]

Chris Engel wrote:
> >From my perspective, I don't see that lack of adoption has very much to do with the inability to get address space. The cost/ability to get sufficient IPv6 address space is so far down the list of factors that weigh against deploying it that it doesn't even register on the scale.
>
> It's the protocol itself, how different it is from the existing protocol and the lack of support for the tools I need to use on a daily basis that are major factors.
>
> If the designers had just stuck 4 more octets on IPv4...kept everything else the same....and called it a day...we'd probably be done and not having this conversation by now......
>
>
> At least from the end Enterprise end...can't really speak to how things look from the backbone/transit guys.
>
> Christopher Engel
>

This perspective I can directly dispute from the perspective of what is
probably one of the smallest 'transit guys' on the list.  The one and
only reason the company I represent has not initiated adoption of IPv6
is the cost increase in fees to ARIN.  I understand that PPML is not the
place to discuss ARIN's fee structure, so this is not intended as an
appeal.

But as a statement of what is barring our IPv6 adoption:  As long as the
minimum allocation of IPv6 for ISPs costs double what we pay now for a
/21 of IPv4 (the minimum allocation for multihomed ISPs), my company
will not be deploying IPv6.

Deploying IPv6 using FD00:: addresses in dual stack with preexisting
IPv4 address has worked well in our internal testing thus far.  So at
the moment our opinion is that the protocol itself is not an issue.

-- 
Charles O'Hern
Network Operations

TCSN - The Computer Shop Netlink
1306 Pine St. Paso Robles CA 93446
1-(805) 227-7000  1-(800) 974-DISK
http://www.tcsn.net  abuse at tcsn.net