Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Hi Philip,
On 11/08/2009, at 4:32 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
I cannot support prop-73 as it stands right now. It's nothing more
than
the Internet equivalent of someone standing on a street corner giving
out leaflets for some wonder product that no one is really interested
in. And we know what happens to those leaflets.
I find the rhetoric a little insulting.
Are you by inference suggesting that ipv6 is a product no one is
really interested in IPv6, and therefore shouldn't bother?
Further along those lines are you suggesting that APNIC should stop
efforts for promoting V6? Waving leaflets and so forth?
Giving something to people who don't want it has never worked for
anything else in life, so I don't know why we'd be so naive to think
that it would magically cause IPv6 to be universally deployed and used
across our region.
I don't think Andy nor I think that this proposal is a panacea. There
are hundreds of reasons why v6 isn't getting anywhere. This is but one
effort at stimulating the uptake given pretty much everything other
attempt I've seen has fallen drastically short.
Getting IPv6 address space is trivially easy for service providers
at least.
Yes, and they have been obviously knocking down APNIC's doors for the
last 10 years to get IPv6 address space ;-)
If there are non-service provider organisations who want IPv6 address
space but cannot get it, I'd much rather see us work on a policy
proposal that allows them to obtain and use IPv6.
I'm sure you are aware, "obtain" and "use" are different - and the
motives for both don't always have a causal relationship.
Further, I would be more interested in supporting a policy which
allowed
an APNIC account holder (or NIR member) with existing IPv4 resource
holding from APNIC to simply get IPv6 address space on request
(without
prompting from the Secretariat). (But isn't this the case now, so I'm
left wondering what problem we are trying to solve here.)
I think this depends on your definition of 'problem'. To take the old
world view of someone's inability to get resource under a strict
policy mandate that many like to adopt, that "problem" isn't there.
To take a look at a greater ecological issue for the internet
regarding the lack of v6, the depletion of v4, the scrambling toward
transfer policies, the technical answers that extend v4 and break the
end to end model.. I see a problem there. Is the APNIC policy SIG
advanced enough to consider that in their bailiwick? Don't know. I do
know that the RIRs almost universally are taking it upon themselves
(under Member direction) to advance and promote IPv6 deployment as
much as possible. I do concede that some think they shouldn't and it's
not in the guise of the original RIR mandate. But I think while the
RIRs have undertaken this effort, I think the policy SIG should
consider supporting that as much as possible and give them the policy
tools that just might help. But alas, my crystal ball is in my other
suit.
BTW, 6.1 in the proposal is void - Fees are the responsibility of the
EC, not the Policy SIG.
The proposal isn't void unless the advice from the secretariat was in
error.
This proposal does not set fees. We are aware that is the role of the
EC. In constructing this proposal we were careful to work _within_ the
EC's fee schedule to not affect members' fees, membership tiers, or
other aspects - else we would have a truly void proposal.
Cheers
Terry