Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignmentof
- They are more likely to announce it and use it than if they don't have it at all.
- They may use it internally in the mean time for testing
- Their upstream may not yet do it, and might turn it on when they do
- This might encourage more upstreams to get v6 capable
- APNIC might be able to generate some press/awareness about IPv6
- There is no cost implication if issued at the same membership level or less
And as Andy said:
- they will need it eventually anyhow... so why not? It isn't going to slow down the take-up of v6, and only removes a barrier to taking it up - because they already have it.
My only concerns is that there should be an analysis process.... maybe something like
"
It will be assigned to all existing APNIC members who:
- presently have ipv4 resources
- presently do not have ipv6 resources
- presently are announcing their ipv4 (if they are defunct and not announcing we don't want to be issuing space)
Or - on renewal of their membership (i think this one might be better)
"
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Andy Linton
> Sent: Monday, 10 August 2009 7:52 AM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic
> allocation/assignmentof IPv6
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy