I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

[Mark Smith]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:28:46 -0700
Michael Sinatra <ms at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> On 09/24/10 23:51, Fred Baker wrote:
> > I would appreciate opinions from the operators forum; please post
> > comments to v6ops at ietf.org.
> >
> > The IPv6 Operations Working Group has been asked to adopt this
> > document as a working group draft. In essence, the outcome would
> > become a suggestion to the RIR and *NOG communities regarding the way
> > the IETF would suggest that IPv6 prefixes be allocated. Note the use
> > of the word "suggest". In summary, what this says is that the IETF
> > holds no strong opinions about specific prefix lengths or boundaries,
> > but strongly feels that the allocation policies should be scalable -
> > which means that PI allocations to edge networks should be done only
> > when Really Truly Appropriate.
> >
> > My question is: is this something that the operational community
> > would consider helpful, or is it something the operational community
> > would prefer the IETF kept its nose out of? If the operational
> > community would find it helpful, is the specific suggestion
> > reasonable from an operational perspective?
> 
> I may be a bit of a curmudgeon here, but I think one sentiment you might 
> hear from the operations community is: "No thank-you.  The IETF has 
> already done more than enough to place obstacles in front of IPv6 
> adoption, particularly by 'end sites'.  We don't need to add to that."
> 

I'm curious as to what specifically these obstacles are or have been? 


<snip>