Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: up a few thousand meters
Agreed. As some of us think it would be a good thing to push IPv6 onwards, we de-emphasize conservation right now, and emphasize easy access to address space.
this seems to be based on some idea that it is address space policy, as opposed to continuingly changing the policy, which is inhibiting the deployment of v6. this does not seem to be the case.
But let's rethink whether all of our experience is fully appropriate in changed circumstances.
re-thinking is always good. acting before thinking is generally not. randy
Hi Randy, At 20:50 02/02/12, Randy Bush wrote:
Agreed. As some of us think it would be a good thing to push IPv6 onwards, we de-emphasize conservation right now, and emphasize easy access to address space.
this seems to be based on some idea that it is address space policy, as opposed to continuingly changing the policy, which is inhibiting the deployment of v6. this does not seem to be the case.
It DOES, although address policy is not only one factor, of course. It is true that the current provisional policy is too insufficient for Asian operators to deploy IPv6, which may not be the case in US though. I can give you some concrete examples happening in Japan if you like; confusion, misunderstanding and discouraging.... This is why we need a little bit better policy quickly.
But let's rethink whether all of our experience is fully appropriate in changed circumstances.
re-thinking is always good. acting before thinking is generally not.
It was a half year ago that the general idea of new policy was made public globally, in Taipei. Since then, our community have thought and discussed a lot, even though it is not enough. Was it you that proposed a good idea of "Interim Policy" because discussion would be otherwise endless? Regards, Takashi Arano
hi arano-san, [ excuse my slowness. travel ... ]
It is true that the current provisional policy is too insufficient for Asian operators to deploy IPv6
insufficient in what way? o that it is hard for a new entrant? o that the allocation is too small? o that it requires tracking sub-allocations? randy
Hi Randy, At 11:20 02/02/14, Randy Bush wrote:
It is true that the current provisional policy is too insufficient for Asian operators to deploy IPv6
insufficient in what way? o that it is hard for a new entrant? o that the allocation is too small? o that it requires tracking sub-allocations?
Yes, these are just part of reasons... - Since there is no policy for so-called NLA allocation, ISPs having a /35 are allocating some spaces to tier-2 ISPs (their customer ISPs) with their own policy, being afraid of possibility APNIC will not allocate more addresses to them due to inefficient use which future policy will define. - I just know one case APNIC is asking a /35 requester of a CATV operator why they will assign /48, not multiple /64s to a household which has more than one subnets. It might be against the RFC but nothing wrong under the current provisional policy which says nothing about this. - 100 sTLAs have already been allocated, but still it's unclear about when the bootstrap period will finish. ISPs wanting a /35 are very confused about this. Actually they are wondering if they should start joining 6bone project 6 months before they raise a /35 request or if they had better wait for the end of bootstrapping phase and apply under the normal condition. Of course, they would be happiest if the new concrete and complete policy were decided. I hope this will help you understand our urgent needs. Thanks. Regards, Takashi Arano
participants (2)
-
Randy Bush -
Takashi Arano