Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignmentof
Hash: SHA1
Hi
> "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"
Getting IPv6 space is easy.
So, if the intent is to notify people that it is easy,
it would be better to word it like
"We noticed you don't have IPv6 space yet. It is very
easy to get IPv6 space. click <here> to apply now"
although I admit it sounds more like promotion rather than policy.
I agree that making an effort to help people
deploy IPv6 is very much necessary, but I still don't
understand the problem that we can solve with this.
Is it just about money?
> "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>"
As I said in an earlier mail, handing out unrequested addresses may
have its consequences, and thus do not support this.
Regards,
Seiichi
Terry Manderson wrote:
> Have spent the weekend away from email, and have just read through
> this thread.
>
> 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
>
>
> * 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
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
iD4DBQFKgO7+crhTYfxyMkIRAjs/AJjNn3PPP3VKZUUVXh3NNAKw1/4LAJ0aY6Ha
QZGoXRL2frL1sd8mqTmbUg==
=Zkrx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----