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

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 8, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> I agree with Joel here, I think once 6rd goes in... if the support is
> in linecards/interfaces and CPE and 'low cost' to the devices in
> question (happens in hardware on the ingress interface of the SP
> router, for instance) then... There's not much incentive to migrate
> away from it. I can see it staying deployed for a very long time.
> (unless of course there are no ipv4 numbers to be used in the ISP...)
> 
> -Chris

That's what concerns me.  6rd will stifle future innovation in what
we can deliver to home users. That's bad. I agree we have to swallow
hard and accept it for the moment, but, to do so, we need to safeguard
the future and have ways to create incentives to deprecate it later.

We can't give people more than a /56 of IPv6 space in 6rd, and even
that requires handing out /24s to the providers to make it happen.

Hierarchical DHCP6-PD structures and other coming household
innovations are going to require that we give SOHO users more than
a /56, ideally a /48. I don't think we want to give every 6rd ISP a /16,
so, I think we need to have ways to get beyond 6rd.

Owen