Re: [sig-policy] prop-101-v002: Removing multihoming , requirement for I
On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:21 AM, David Woodgate wrote:
>
> Izumi,
>
>> I'm also interested to know how many organizations actually have issues
>> about the multi-homing criteria at the moment. We haven't heard this is
>> an issue in Japan from our members at the moment.
>>
>> David, perhaps you've heard about a few specific cases?
>
> I think that the reason there haven't been many issues raised at this
> stage is that IPv6 has not had widespread deployment so far amongst
> general businesses or enterprises; my observation is that much of the
> industry discussion up until now has focused on IPv6 addressing of
> ISPs or by ISPs of consumers using dynamic addressing (e.g. prefix delegation).
>
> But I believe that as more business-grade IPv6 products become
> available, then certain types of companies will be reluctant to adopt
> IPv6 if it involves either numbering from a particular ISP's
> addresses (therefore potentially committing them to that ISP for a
> very long period), or requiring them to pay for additional services
> to multihome when they haven't had to do so previously, simply in
> order to qualify for portable assignment space from APNIC.
>
> Again, I am assuming that most businesses would be likely to use IPv6
> services using prefix-delegation or other dynamic addressing, or be
> multihomed, or be small enough to reasonably undertake renumbering of
> a whole statically-assigned network if necessary; but I believe that
> some businesses will not be in any of those categories.
>
> (Also please remember that we are now the *only* RIR remaining that
> still insists on multihoming for portable IPv6 assignments.)
>
>> Izumi/JPNIC
>
> Many thanks for your question,
>
As someone dealing with a number of businesses that have deployed
and/or are deploying IPv6, I have to support what David is saying here.
The multihoming requirement is an artifact of IPv4 scarcity and should
not remain as a hurdle to IPv6 deployment in the enterprise.
Owen