Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
Hi Philip,
On 11/08/2009, at 6:09 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Terry,
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.
To be clear, it was just that one paragraph, not the entire response.
I'm trying to understand how the proposal will help with deploying
IPv6
- simple analogies with "the real world" often help clarify concepts.
The more I speak with people about technology issues, the more I
realise such analogies to technology are flawed and often confuse more
than clarify (imho)
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.
I wonder if this falls into the case of enlightened self-interest.
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.
Sorry, extrapolation of the idea.
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.
I don't see that improving the internet through ipv6 deployment as a
time waste.
If you see it as dreaming up new methods to fix their problems,
welcome to arbitrage.
If we, as the RIR policy SIG don't - then I worry for the future as
maybe someone else will. Perhaps idealistically I see the RIR policy
space as the custodians of advancing internet deployment.
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?
Again, expressing poetic licence..
I haven't seen anything in the proposal that will help persuade people
to deploy IPv6. Please point me to the appropriate paragraphs.
Indeed it doesn't. Although if you were given something that _might_
make things easier for you, wouldn't you try it out? maybe, just maybe
configure an ipv6 interface? see what happens when you add it a BGP
session? maybe call your upstream and see if they can route it?
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.
In 1992 Microsoft came to my university and gave every IT student a
copy of (the newly released) windows 3.1.
I, and almost every other student in that lecture theatre neither
needed nor wanted it. Yet when we got home we installed, and
investigated. Some of my alumni haven't diverged from the Microsoft
product line and Microsoft have a substantial position. I'm not sure
if you can relate to the anecdote. But basically it is about fostering
the 'want' for what Microsoft saw as an undefined 'need'.
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.
Solved. no. Attempting to mitigate - yes. Doing all we can apart from
installing it for them, yes.
Chewing up Secretariat time marrying every single IPv4 resource holder
with an IPv6 address block is certainly a great way of making APNIC
look
From what I guess, the ability allocate to the IPv4 resource holder
should be a matter of programming.
But I'll defer to the secretariat as to how much programming might be
involved in relation to the database structures they maintain,
although I'm reasonably sure that code for a spare allocation
mechanism exists and APNIC maintains details on what resources a
member holds and under what conditions.
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.
No, you won't see it magically appear all at once. But if this
proposal has an effect in 30% of the members where an engineer tells
his/her management "APNIC have just given us a /32 and we didn't have
to do anything - lets do something with it" I would be insanely happy.
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. ;-)
That is the thing, they don't based on the EC's 2010 fees model. :-)
Terry