[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Stefan,

On Jun 8, 2006, at 3:31 AM, Stefan Camilleri wrote:
> It seems that a number of people at the helm of the Internet  
> decision process need some exposure to realities of the ISP  
> business and more specifically to the issues related to the  
> introduction of IPv6.

In the context of IP address policies, you, as part of the RIPE  
community, are the one "at the helm of the Internet decision process"  
-- it is you and the rest of the RIPE community that are creating the  
policies.  If you need more exposure to reality... :-)

> We have over /17 of IPv4 address space allocated. We have over  
> 20,000 broadband customers and well over 200 clients that would  
> benefit from Ipv6 assignments and who now either have a /24 to /28  
> or use NAT. We also operate a small transit network and are linked  
> to a major European Tier1 provider. Finally we are part of an Ipv6  
> task force trying to determine the future direction of IPv6  
> rollout. But basically I CANNOT have a plan, at this stage for /48  
> on Ipv6. Its WAY too early. On the other hand we are upgrading our  
> kit as part of the normal hardware lifetime updates and we consider  
> this the right time to go for Ipv6 peering. Like Tim in his  
> submission I could EASILY put a plan together contradicting my  
> current reality... But why should I lie to RIPE?

You shouldn't.  Just to be clear, you are saying you cannot come up  
with plans that you believe represents a reasonable approximation to  
what you believe your IPv6 needs will be for your customers _in two  
years_?

When do you expect to provide v6 services to your customers?

> And one final thing, we're talking about IPv6.

Actually, since IPv6 followed IPv4's mistake of co-mingling location  
with identity, we're really talking about routing scalability.  Since  
IPv6 uses the exact same routing technology as IPv4, it isn't too  
surprising that the same problems that we're experiencing in IPv4  
reoccur with IPv6.

> The addressing space that can allow 2000 addresses per square meter  
> on the planet as some of the current cliches go...

This piece of misinformation is probably among the most damaging the  
IPv6 community has inflicted on itself.  While theoretically true in  
the pedantic sense, in reality it is pure misdirection and completely  
irrelevant.

> We're established and qualified in the business but I have to beg,  
> grovel or lie to get  this allocation!!

Dramatic, but I suspect a bit of hyperbole.

I'm honestly curious: have you applied to RIPE for IPv6 address space  
and been rejected?

> THAT is confusing

If it is confusing, it is probably because you've drunk the IPv6  
Forum cool aid.  IPv6 did not address (pun intended) the routing  
scalability issue.  As such, the same constraints that impact address  
usage (note: not address availability) in IPv4 apply to IPv6.  What  
is confusing to me is that network operators of today seem so eager  
to recreate the problems that nearly caused the Internet to break in  
the mid-nineties.  However, the nice thing about history repeating  
itself is that you know what to expect...

Rgds,
-drc