Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocati

To: "Jonny Martin" <jonny at jonnynet dot net>

Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria

From: "Neil Fenemor" <neil at underground dot geek dot nz>

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:02:49 +1300

Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net

Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net

In-reply-to: <B883AB22-CFC2-49CE-8CA2-1D1F114EC5D2 at jonnynet dot net>

List-archive: <http://mailman.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: <4799E61F.8060300@psg.com> <B883AB22-CFC2-49CE-8CA2-1D1F114EC5D2@jonnynet.net>

On 26/01/2008, Jonny Martin <jonny at jonnynet dot net> wrote:

On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has
> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during
> the
> Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February
> 2008.
>
> The proposal's history can be found at:
>
>        http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html
>

Now I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently
I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal.  Current
wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers.  I have plans
for a lot of things.  Reality is often quite different to those plans.

I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6.
If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying -
in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how
are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it.

Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6
space under the current policy?  If there is demonstrably a real
problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy.
Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.

I think the members you need to ask would be those that have been put off by the current requirement.

As you say, a plan is a very loose term, however there are members out there that I'm sure haven't applied for the an allocation based on the current criteria wording. I think the minor change to the wording as outlined here would help those cases.

Cheers,
Jonny.

Cheers,

neil