[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 02:26:40PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

> > > I can see that people don't like it, I'm just mentioning that it *could*
> > > be done.  We will need to do something like that for the class "is ISP
> > > but is not LIR", even if we abandon the 200-users rule.
> > I would change that to "is mutlihomed but is not LIR". Even without being an
> > ISP you can easily run into the same problems. And I do not want to be in
> > charge at Siemens, GM, Nortel, Cisco or so for renumbering projects. 
> 
> So what is your propsal for a new policy, then?
> 
> "Everybody who is special gets their own allocation?"

I personally would like to see "Everybody who wants it gets an allocation",
but I see the technical limitations. 

But I agree with Oliver in so far, as I can not see IPv6 deployment in major
organisations without giving them advantages over IPv4. This is an
economical limitation.

So now the question is: Should the policy try to fix the technical problem
and then we wait for economics to change, or should the policy try to fix
the economical problem and we wait for technology to change?

Given the pace of change in these two field, I think it is more likely that
technicians come up with a solution being able to handle billions of routes,
then economy doing something that costs money to lose a benefit.

Currently working on the next budget I again (like the last two years) think
about budgeting for the move v4 to v6 (or more precisely for its start, as
this will never be done within one year). And though my technically
intereted heart would love to do it, the brain kicks in: There is
absolutely no reason, it costs money, it does not give you any advantage.

I think the policy, concentrating on technical issues, actually makes IPv6
less attractive.


Nils
-- 
C: Ich möchte nicht länger "Junge" genannt werden. Ich finde den Ausdruck
   demütigend und sexistisch.
H: Wie möchtest Du dann genannt werden?          [aus "Calvin and Hobbes"
C: "Genetisch bevorzugter Jugendlicher".                    by Watterson]