Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6
But how does it hurt? Even if it helps a little bit, that is a good thing. It is also one of the more cheaper options that APNIC could do.
After I get back from APNIC 28 my company will be doing as much as it can to promote IPv6. We're developing a document for Rapid training of IT staff at the moment and will be launching it soon after some testing with some customers.
I think there really is a lot more than APNIC could be doing and I will be having some meetings in Beijing to talk about some strategies that might help.
As long as there is an agreed end game of IPv6 adoption, I think anything we can do to push it along a bit more should be encouraged.
Phil and Others who have the thought that "giving something to people that they don't want" is pointless.... I don't think you guys are helping... at least these guys are trying. Yes, I think the proposal could be improved so that each member is offered it on their renewal.... or some other more interactive way... but SOMETHING has to happen.
You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution guys.... Don't knock down their proposal... offer on how to make it better.
I realise a lot of you speak at conferences and are doing quite a lot for the promotion of IPv6... but if others choose to do it in a different way, support them... or at least... don't try to hamper them.... if the policy proposed doesn't hurt anything... support it... if it does hurt a little... offer some advice on changing it... simply saying 'no' doesn't help any of us get where we want to get to.... which is the wide spread adoption, understanding and uptake of IPv6.
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Philip Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:10 PM
> To: Terry Manderson
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-073:Automatic allocation/assignment of
> IPv6
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> --
> * 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