[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 7, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> My biggest concerns with both policies and with 6rd in general are as follows:
>> 
>> 1.      If it becomes a permanent deployment, it will seriously degrade end user
>>        capabilities and stifle innovation and place unnecessary limits on future
> 
> more than not having ipv6 will? more than nat/nat/nat will? I'm not a
> particularly large fan of 6rd either, but... it does give the
> capability to get v6 to end users (in a decent quality) and today.
> 
Less than those, but, more than native IPv6.

> Talking to Mark some, and Lorenzo, and looked at ietf work ongoing to
> bring operations tools/capabilities they need to deploy v6 in a
> congruent manner as v4.... waiting for this will take quite a long
> while (2-3 years at best for the standards work to finish, never mind
> implementations).
> 
Hence my suggestion that we provide for 6rd, but, require that it be
something we can deprecate later.

> To be clear, I'd support neither -9 nor -12, but a fix for -12 that
> removed all of the 'transition technology' wording and focused on
> 'subsequent allocation' alone.
> 
Yeah, I can't support that without safeguards to make sure that we
can deprecate 6rd.

Owen