Re: [sig-policy] Fwd: Re: [nznog] Prop 94
the right place in the thread as I can manage, without the Message-Id:
of the actual message to which I'm replying. I *am* on the list now.)
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 at 14:44:31 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> my vision of the smll allocations of the final /8 policy is, as andy
> >> said, to allow v6-only or dual-stacked end sites to front onto the
> >> dual-stacked backbones.
> >
> > So would you envisage us asking for a deployment plan describing how
> > they would use the /22 to get their v6-only or dual-stacked end sites
> > to front onto the dual-stacked backbones?
>
> the final /8 policy uses the one-and-only-one condition to throttle
> mis-use. it is wonderfully simple. imiho, making people do this and
> that, or making them lie is not worth much effort.
I agree that merely requiring a 'deployment plan' would be insufficient.
By this point in the 21st century, they ought to have a viable IPv6
deployment *already*, and *that* could be a requirement of the new
allocation. That is not something they can 'lie' about.
Prop 89 recommends this, along with guiding examples of what the term
'viable IPv6 deployment' would mean for certain types of member.
Unfortunately there *are* still organisations who are still burying
their heads in the sand and pretending that IPv4 is still sufficient. It
isn't just about preserving the resource for as long as possible; it's
more about preventing abuse by *those* organisations, who want to snatch
up some of the last of the Legacy IP address space *instead* of joining
the rest of us in the 21st century.
--
dwmw2