Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignmentof
Even those large ISP's that move to carrier grade NAT (which is a Good Thing TM), will eventually run out of IPv4. Especially as the larger ones have a corporate/business customer-base who will demand it.
And like the internet grew to the point that businesses didn't really have a choice but to be on it, IPv6 will too grow and eventually reach a point that there will be IPv6 only content and facilities, which will basically force people to do it.
As vendors make it easier and there is more support, and that the CPE's being sold on the shelves that natively support it become the norm, and when ISP's start to support it as a default option, and businesses become more aware of the implications, then IPv6 will flourish.
It may take longer than we hope - and it may take until we officially run out of IPv4 and the front page of the newspapers start going on about the Y2K-like implications of what will happen... but it will happen.
I find this hard to argue against.... but I do understand what Randy is saying... though while people may not want it, and I believe they will eventually have to admit they need it, maybe forcing it on them now is not the best thing... but... I still support some approach to getting more people on board.
Maybe we just do it a little differently... as in my previous email where I made the suggestion that on renewal of their membership, but rather than just issuing it to them - as part of the process - OFFER it to them, clearly stating there is no cost implication to them.... you will probably still get a lot of uptake. "As part of your renewal process, we notice you have no IPv6.... words on a page".
...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 Randy Bush
> Sent: Monday, 10 August 2009 9:39 AM
> To: Andy Linton
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic
> allocation/assignmentof IPv6
>
> <personal opinions>
>
> > 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?
>
> that's an open question, isn't it? we are facing a distinct
> possibility
> of a massively natted ipv4 network. i am extremely displeased by this
> possibility. but that does not mean that i deny it.
>
> >> 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.
>
> not as i remember. perhaps sander or gert will comment. my memory
> (which is known to be horribly faulty) is that the proposal that failed
> took care of that. it seem to have failed because it was seen that
> handing out resources that someone had not asked for and was not going
> to use was silly.
>
> > Under APNIC's new pricing that's not the case.
>
> then perhaps the simple solition is seeing that apnic's pricing sees
> that those who want/need to deploy ipv6 can get the resources easily
> and
> cheaply.
>
> > And if we don't use addressing policy to influence technical or
> social
> > behavior why would we bother expending the effort that we do?
>
> sometimes i wonder. i.e. i think the rirs' policy processes create too
> much complexity and noise. this all used to be done by one computer
> scientist working part time. yes, it has scaled. but i worry that our
> policies and processes have inflated analogously to icann's budget.
>
> the only reason i see for all this is that we are stewards of a set of
> resources that are limited and therefore need to be doled out fairly
> and
> prudently. and giving some of those resources to folk who do not ask
> for them and do not plan to use them does not seem to meet either of
> those criteria.
>
> </personal opinions>
>
> randy
> * 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