[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12
joelja at bogus.com
Fri Oct 8 14:32:09 EDT 2010
On 10/7/10 3:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>> 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.
in either the native case or the 6rd case you're jacking up the cpe so
the difference is in the access network.
>> 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
> 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.
if something gets cooked into the network for perhaps a decade it's not
coming out easily. the ability to deprecate it is tied either to it's
nature as a short-term bandaid, which I'm not sure I buy or it's failure
in the marketplace. I see no reason to presuppose the latter.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML