[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On 10/26/11 1:55 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>> Again, this are facts, complains and questions we get from real life on
>> the operational field.
>
> Knowing you represent Go6, I do wonder what operators are requesting
> this.

Hi,

I'm not going into names, but even many of them who are looking into 
multiple domains now would go into one domain 6RD if this would be even 
remotely possible.

While doing IPv6 world-tour with Go6 presentation I talk to many of them 
at the events and there is repeating story, over and over again.

> It wouldn't hurt if they came here and voiced their opinions
> directly either. The APWG-ml community is not a 1:1 map to RIPE region
> operators, so the community response you will get here may or may not be
> what you want.

This is a pitty. I would also like them to voice out their opinion here. 
Looks like *I* need this policy to change, but I don't, even in my 
country there will be no 6RD deployment, we cause we did our homework 
right. So, this effort is purely to ease some things for others.

> I wish it was feasible to counter-suggest that those who spend more
> effort get a better service to customers and 'market forces' takes care
> of the rest (ie, native IPv6 provides the best service, and competition
> eats up those 15 year old DSLAMs...).

This is how it is supposed to go, yes.

>
> (On second thought, isn't it?)
>
> IMHO, we're not necessarily helped with deploying IPv6 services at
> unlimited cost. And being too lazy to not map 32 bits of IPv4 space into
> 6RD strikes me like such a thing (and if you want to do it, you still
> could, with the A,B,C and attached justifying documentation.)

I'll leave the cost calculations to operators and their staff, but, 
again, from what I hear, there are economical issues that I even don't 
properly understand (as I'm not economist).

Cheers from OECD meeting in Paris :) :) :)

Jan