[address-policy-wg] insufficient availability of IPv6 address space for end customers

Hi,

> I understand you feel the IPv6 addressing architecture of a few ISPs you are dealing with is so poor that you cannot stand by silently. I'll assume you have made attempts to meaningfully (and without emotion) exchange ideas with them.    You've now come to this list to paint them with a broad brush.   So in this case, I think you should name names.  What are the names of the ISPs you are dealing with who are managing their IPv6 product so poorly that you think ALL of RIPE's providers should be subject to more regulation from the NCC?  By naming them, perhaps representatives here will see your plea, and perhaps members of the Address Policy WG can intercede on your behalf or have engineer-to-engineer discussions with them.

Well ... for one, if it had been one or two providers, I probably wouldn't
have felt the need to do anything about it, there always are some bad
products on the market, and the best way to deal with them is to simply not
buy them. It seems to me like this is a systemic problem, given how many
providers seem to be affected by it. Now, no, I didn't try to "exchange
ideas" with all of them, that would simply have been too much work, but I
did with quite a few, and my impressions come from what they said plus the
content of the offers (or non-offers) from the others.

Also, maybe I should stress that when I wrote that many providers seem
"incompetent" or "psychologically incapable", that is not meant as an
insult, but as a rather neutral description of the problem: They don't
understand the tradeoffs in address allocation, but instead only react on
an emotional level to the idea of assigning "so many addresses!", or at
least that is my interpretation of the behaviour I observed--while RIPE
documents seem to assume that people try to rationally understand address
allocation/assignment.

However, I do not necessarily think that more regulation is the way to go
(really, IMO that should be the last resort if nothing else helps), and if
more regulation is the way to go, I guess it should be put together in such
a way that the impact on competent providers is as close to zero as
possible ...

Things are further complicated by the fact that many of the providers
probably aren't RIPE members themselves (I don't really know, not all RIPE
members do advertise it prominently ...).

> Even now in late 2015, I believe IPv6 is still very greenfield. Network operators are still figuring out how to best do things; how to best architect IPv6 offerings in a way that balances their needs with their customers' needs.  More regulation from the NCC is, in my opinion, many years premature.  

Well ... I am not sure whether that is funny or just sad, given that I've
had native IPv6 connectivity for the last 10 years, with a /48 prefix, from
a competent provider (yes, they do exist, obviously!), which now needs
replacement (for reasons unrelated to the provider or their competence).

Regards, Florian