[arin-ppml] Preemptive IPv6 assignment

[George, Wes E IV [NTK]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William
> Herrin
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:31 AM
> To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Preemptive IPv6 assignment

> Respectfully, "does it actually work" is germane to -every- policy
> discussion.

[WES] Never said otherwise. Matter of fact, I think that's exactly what I'm saying, Bill. Does preemptively assigning every ASN in the table an IPv6 address actually work (by itself) in getting them to deploy? You say "maybe/yes so let's do it just in case" I say no, at least partially because I'm not in support of policy for policy's sake, and we've reached an impasse.

My point in saying that it wasn't germane to the discussion was that I didn't want to turn this into a PI vs PD debate, because I realize that would be oversimplifying things, that's all. I only brought it up as a possible method to address the problem which was raised, which was fees, not allocation justification or paperwork.
>
> > I simply don't see the point at which this helps spur deployment.
>
> Does the quarterback refuse to throw the ball because no receiver is
> in a position to make a touchdown? Of course not. Let's get the
> allocations and assignments we know are needed in to the network
> engineers' hands. Unless we're ready to punt to the v4 CGN team, we
> need to move the v6 ball down field.
[WES] I have this overwhelming urge to start chanting "RU-DY! RU-DY!" ;-)
Seriously, regardless of what metaphor you use, we're not actively doing something to prevent people from getting IPv6 allocations if they can justify them (except possibly for 6rd). CGN is going to happen for a lot of other reasons, few of which have to do with whether people can get IPv6 allocations. Yes, more IPv6 hopefully means less IPv4 NAT, but the fundamental disagreement you are having with me and several others on this list is whether allocations (or lack thereof) are actually serving as a barrier to deployment or not. I *wish* that was actually what is holding the majority of people back from deploying IPv6 or pushing them to use CGN.

Wes George

________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.