Randy Bush wrote:
yamanshi-san,Yes, that is a situation in Japan even though many IPv6 addresses are allocated/assigned. So, I doubt that automatic IPv6 allocation/assignment will help IPv6 deployment.
But will it hold deployment back? If everyone is going to have an IPv6 block, why not now?If we don't do this are we really saying that we don't expect everyone who currently has an IPv4 address allocation to have an IPv6 allocation at some stage?
What does that say about the message we've been trying to convey that IPv4 is running out and people *will have to* deploy IPv6?
indeed, this strategy was considered and discarded by both ripe and arin. american (and probably many others') idiom: you can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink.
And RIPE discarded it because it would have seen members getting a higher bill had it proceeded. Under APNIC's new pricing that's not the case.
I know the proverb - I think we're simply trying to point out that there's an alternative abundant water source to the horses!
and using addressing policy to force technical or social behavior would seem to be slippery slope with an ugly middle and bottom.
I'm a bit concerned about the use of the word 'force' in here. Our proposal doesn't suggest any notion of 'forcing' anyone to do anything. I'd suggest that it's about 'encouraging' people and removing a barrier.
And if we don't use addressing policy to influence technical or social behavior why would we bother expending the effort that we do?