Why not IPv6 yet (Re: IPv6 traffic data in Asian networks?)

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

Jeroen, please calm down a bit.  Half of the stuff you're claiming about
IPv6 policies in the RIPE region isn't fully correct - and it's not
overly helpful for the policy development either if you just start
bashing folks.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:59:49AM +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> That the RIPE region can't formulate a proper way tsja. Apparently the
> only push at the moment is to throw out the 200 rule and giving
> everybody who wants then a /32, not because they need it, but because it
> is more fun to do, or something silly which I still don't understand.
> And clearly nobody else, otherwise they could have answered my questions
> I asked for on the mailing list.

This has been discussed numerous times - there are LIRs that just have
a small number of very big customers (like "5 major universities"),
will never have 200 customers, but clearly justify having v6 space on 
their own.  

Furthermore, if you claim to see no reason to do away with the 200-customer
rule - you haven't give any reason to *stick* to it either.

The question that should be asked in this discussion is "do we want 
ISPs (=LIRs) to provide IPv6 or not?" - and if the answer is "yes", then
the RIPE policies should make it *easy* to get IPv6 PA blocks to ISPs.

> I am fine using my providers address space, they are very capable of
> running stuff like routers 24/7. 

But for that to work, your provider needs to be able to *get* address
space.  Not every ISP can truthfully claim to have zillions of end users,
some are just very specialized - and still need address space.

> But if I where in a dire need for "IPv6
> PI" (every body wants a slot in the routing table it seems) then I would
> have long ago proposed a new policy at RIPE. Clearly nobody who has this
> huge need for IPv6 PI has done so yet. And really, big ISP's can't care
> less about doing it for you, if you want it, do it yourself.

This statement is just not true.  There *is* an IPv6 PI policy proposal
(2006-01) by Jordi Palet.  It's currently in review phase, as the APWG
didn't like the first draft, and thus Jordi is working with Filiz on
incorporating the comments received.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  98999

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279