[arin-ppml] 125

[Jack Bates]

I oppose 125, and the changes haven't changed why I oppose it.

On 1/7/2011 7:01 AM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems wrote:
> However, many providers who manage their networks efficiently, or who
> believe that they can manage in the transfer market for a while,
> etc., may be desiring to wait out the storm, and then deploy IPv6
> when costs are more inline, and/or needed talent is more readily
> available.

Honestly, the problem is implementation readiness and pricing. Vendors 
have often pushed the better IPv6 stacks to their newer gear only, 
pushing the price of deploying into a proper IPv6 layout higher. In 
addition, not all problems have been resolved by most/all vendors.

So the policy proposal is to strong arm people into spending money on 
more expensive crap hardware solutions to deploy something that is far 
inferior to what they currently have instead of letting them wait until 
vendors can work the bugs out and market pricing can come down to a 
reasonable level.

Oh, and before I forget. There are millions of users out there that 
CANNOT use IPv6 with their cheap(by business standards, not home user 
standards), "can NEVER be upgraded to IPv6" routers. This has been done 
by design to allow all these home router vendors to get more money out 
of the masses. I was informed just recently that the company which 
produces one of our PPPoE area CPE's will NOT be support IPv6 on any of 
the old version CPE (actually, I've been told this by almost every DSL 
manufacturer, but luckily I thought ahead and didn't deploy CPEs that 
needed v6 support in 99% of the areas). Sad really.


Jack