| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
While we certainly don't want IPv6 addresses to be given out carelessly, I am conscious that if we as a community want IPv6 to be implemented broadly in a public Internet, then we need to remove any potential barriers - to the extent that is reasonable - for such initial deployment.
I'd argue that at the moment it is difficult for an LIR to be concrete about a plan for IPv6 sub-allocations, because the takeup rate of IPv6 by their customers is beyond their control. However, if they are denied access to v6 addresses until there is enough certainty of broad v6 deployment, then such v6 deployment might never happen, because the end providers may not be confident enough about their ability to access v6 addresses when they would otherwise want to deploy v6.
If this proposal can help avoid such a situation and encourage wider IPv6 takeup, then I support its basic concept.
Regards,
David Woodgate
At 06:54 PM 13/02/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
Randy Bush said the following on 13/2/08 14:23: >> If prop-53 goes through (lowering minimum IPv4 allocation to /24), then >> basically anyone who gets a /24 will get an IPv6 /32. >> >> Does the community really want this? > > some of us are nostalgic for the days when class As (that's /8s now) > were given away like water. > > </sarcasm> Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Which is what this is. :-( Check http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana, FWIW. philip --* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *_______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy