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

Dave,
> 
> On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:50 PM, Stefan Camilleri wrote:
> >>> My customers have not yet requested it so how can I plan for any 
> >>> numbers.
> >> It is called "marketing projections".
> > I see. So my hunch was right. Just throw in a bunch of numbers and 
> > keep on kidding ourselves
> 
> It is possible to come up with reasonable projections of the 
> future.   
> People do it every day in business plans.  Marketing 
> projections are not inherently "kidding ourselves".  They are 
> merely trying to take an estimation of the market and project 
> it into the future.  I believe the "plan" requirement of 
> existing IPv6 policies was intended to take into account the 
> fact that deploying IPv6 is an unknown, both in terms of 
> customer uptake and infrastructure requirements.

I'm well aware of that. That is basically the process when planning for Ipv4.
We're constantly doing it in our business. However we get a number of nth order
equations to which we often have previous solutions/trends and then extrapolate
and make educated guesses based on often proven assumptions. IPv6 allocation is
unknown (as you also pointed out). Its an equation with many variables and no
known points of reference. That is why trying to put a 'marketing' plan TODAY
for 200 /48's within 2 years is kidding ourselves.

> >> If, by some chance, you don't meet the plan you specify, you can 
> >> simply return the v6 space you were allocated, no?  If you have 
> >> allocated address space to customers, I would imagine 
> RIPE-NCC could 
> >> be convinced to give you a bit of extra time.  (Perhaps 
> that's a good 
> >> place for policy revision?)
> > Exactly the point. THAT would be an intelligent policy so 
> why all the 
> > fuss about wanting to retain the current policy!
> 
> This would be a different change than what 2006-02 proposes.

True ... But who in the LIR community will recommend that. ;-)

> 
> > Yes. I was aware of that. Unfortunately IMHO, a bad start in the v6 
> > allocation process.. But what's done is done.
> 
> And continues to be done.
> 
> >>>> I'm honestly curious: have you applied to RIPE for IPv6 address 
> >>>> space and been rejected?
> >>> And yes, I did apply and yes I was rejected.
> >> Fascinating.
> > Truly awesome ... I'm doing my best to smile :-|
> 
> Given RIPE-NCC's IPv6 allocation statistics, I got the 
> impression they didn't turn anyone down...
> :-)

Well.. You got example no.1 Maybe the rest dreamt up some plan or other. I'd
wait and see in 2 years time how many /48's have really been made.


> Rgds,
> -drc
>