Re: [sig-policy] prop-057: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation cr
While we certainly don't want IPv6 addresses to be given out
carelessly, I am conscious that if we as a community want IPv6 to be
implemented broadly in a public Internet, then we need to remove any
potential barriers - to the extent that is reasonable - for such
I'd argue that at the moment it is difficult for an LIR to be
concrete about a plan for IPv6 sub-allocations, because the takeup
rate of IPv6 by their customers is beyond their control. However, if
they are denied access to v6 addresses until there is enough
certainty of broad v6 deployment, then such v6 deployment might never
happen, because the end providers may not be confident enough about
their ability to access v6 addresses when they would otherwise want
to deploy v6.
If this proposal can help avoid such a situation and encourage wider
IPv6 takeup, then I support its basic concept.
At 06:54 PM 13/02/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
Randy Bush said the following on 13/2/08 14:23:
>> If prop-53 goes through (lowering minimum IPv4 allocation to /24), then
>> basically anyone who gets a /24 will get an IPv6 /32.
>> Does the community really want this?
> some of us are nostalgic for the days when class As (that's /8s now)
> were given away like water.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Which is what this is. :-( Check
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net