Re: [sig-policy] A second policy proposal for the Policy SIG

To: TOYAMA Katsuyasu <toyama.katsuyasu at lab.ntt dot co dot jp>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] A second policy proposal for the Policy SIG
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 09:02:30 -0700
Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C0A90AB5.16B891%jordi.palet@consulintel.es> <448432F5.9@lab.ntt.co.jp>

> An end site which needs only a single link can connect
> to IPv6 internet with non-portable assignment.

[ sorry, i can not see jordi's mail due to his legal notice ]

proposals in the other regions allow end sites which can
justify v4 pi space in the normal way to have v6 pi.  this is
at least consistent.

the attempts to maket v6 by giving away address space are silly
and seriously damaging in the long run.  v6's marketing problem
is not inability to get space, but utter lack of a perceivable
benefit to the user.

randy