Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignmentof
I think there are several points that might help clarify the position
before we build analogies upon analogies.
* I have sat through many presentations by some bright people saying
that "_we_ are not doing enough" to deploy v6, and I have even done a
few myself. The materials are out there, some vendor support is out
there, and the marketing is being done. As a pragmatist (not
pessimist ;) I look at what could still be done that reduces barriers
and gets v6 easily and effortlessly into the hands of people that
should be working on/with it.
* This policy proposal won't solve all the issues with v6 deployment.
However I do believe this is a reasonable action to take given the
current climate - v6 deployment needs all the help it can get, even a
small one as this.
* The proposal has an 'opt out' clause. If a member truly does not
want v6. They can say so. I have no intention on forcing unwanted
prefixes on members. (note I see a huge difference between 'unwanted'
and 'unneeded') Further, neither Andy nor I are averse to making the
interaction with APNIC 'opt in'.
The difference, as an example, might be (via email or myapnic or both):
"From day X you are entitled to a /32 of IPv6 space which does not
affect your member fees, click <here> to add to your member account"
or
"From day X your member account will be allocated a /32 of IPv6 space
which does not affect your member fees. If you do NOT want this
allocation click <here>"
Thoughts?? Is there a clear preference?? What would encourage
deployment more??
Cheers
Terry