Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Terry Manderson said the following on 11/8/09 17:33 :
>
> I find the rhetoric a little insulting.
I'm sorry you are insulted, and I'm sorry you think my response is
nothing more than rhetoric.
I'm trying to understand how the proposal will help with deploying IPv6
- simple analogies with "the real world" often help clarify concepts.
And giving things to people who don't want those things usually has one
end result; and not the one we would like or think is good for them.
> Are you by inference suggesting that ipv6 is a product no one is really
> interested in IPv6, and therefore shouldn't bother?
Please don't make up things I did not say. It is very clear that there
are organisations in the industry with absolutely no foresight or
forward planning what so ever. We should not be wasting our time trying
to dream up new methods to fix their problems.
> Further along those lines are you suggesting that APNIC should stop
> efforts for promoting V6? Waving leaflets and so forth?
Where did I say that?
> 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.
I haven't seen anything in the proposal that will help persuade people
to deploy IPv6. Please point me to the appropriate paragraphs.
>> 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.
?? You can't use if you can't obtain. If there are problems for
organisations to obtain IPv6 address space, then we should work on
fixing those problems, quite frankly.
> 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.
And this problem is solved by prop-073? That's what I'm trying to
understand.
Chewing up Secretariat time marrying every single IPv4 resource holder
with an IPv6 address block is certainly a great way of making APNIC look
as though they have handed out loads of IPv6 address space, but I'd be
surprised if much or even any of it will be seen in the routing system
any time soon.
> 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.
Saying that fees "don't change" is setting fees in the case where fees
would otherwise change because of an IPv6 allocation. ;-)
philip
--