Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
At 04:51 07/02/28, Robert Gray wrote:
>>IPv4 exhaustion gives negative impact, more or less.
>>The issue here is how to reduce the pain. As Randy said, choice of short sharp pain or long-term pain well describes this issue.
>
>Arano-san
>
>I'm not sure that the choice is this simple.
>
>The community needs to promote a progressive global deployment of IPv6 and this needs to start very soon otherwise there will be no ability to transition when the time (however defined) comes.
>
>I do not think that the imposition of arbitrary exhaustion dates will of itself be sufficient to make this happen.
Our intention is not to impose something.
This is intended to guarantee LIRs to get IPv4 addresses by the specific date pre-announced.
As a result, x-date would be shorten just by one a few months.
We believe it is useful and necessary for LIR/ISP's planning division.
>>Anyway, time proceeds. We have to confront this issue seriously
>>and as soon as possible.
>
>Here we agree 100%
>
>The difference in approach seems to be that some of us would like to see more action taken sooner to specifically promote IPv6 deployment rather than concentrating solely on what happens until x-date
Yes, on different hats of mine, the IPv6 forum and Asia Pacific IPv6 Task Force
are going to promote IPv6 and provide some guidelines for ISPs more seriously than ever.
Regards,
Takashi Arano