Philip Smith wrote:
Sam Dickinson said the following on 31/1/08 10:43:
Two member surveys have been conducted since the IPv6 policy document
was adopted in 2002. In the responses to those surveys, the 'plan
for 200 assignments' criteria was not mentioned as a barrier to
applying for an IPv6 allocation.
Great, thanks very much for your response, Sam.
So, Izumi-san has identified a real problem within the Japanese
community. Yet APNIC member surveys don't show a problem anywhere else
in AsiaPac, which tallies with my experience too.
May I politely suggest that JPNIC works with their membership to clarify
that "come up with a plan for 200 assignments in 2 years" is NOT the
same as "you MUST make 200 assignments in 2 years or else"?
To me it makes no sense making the huge effort to change a regional
policy if the interpretation problem only exists in one member economy.
I note a few other voices of support for this proposal on the mailing
list, so I don't think we can be sure that the problem is closed within
Japan. If we also look worldwide, similar proposal was supported and
implemented in all other regions except APNIC.
I think the nature of this issue is that it could be a problem for
small/medium ISPs who plan for IPv6 deployment, but not for large ISPs
or those who haven't seriously considered it.
I'd agree that it's a problem which only exists in JP if a survey was
conducted to ask if the current criteria is being a barrier when
considering to deploy IPv6 and hardly anyone considers it as an issue.
izumi