Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:40:26PM +0900, Kosuke Ito wrote:
> > There are many countries having the similar situation like yours
> > in APNIC region as well, I believe. If LACNIC allows to put off
> > this specific condition, then, many of ISPs who has not had an
> > IPv6 allocation yet in APNIC likes to have the same one in
> > APNIC. Many of ISPs even in Japan may welcome to have it, too.
> > Maybe same in RIPE-NCC, and in ARIN.
> 
> The 200-user limit has not really been a problem in the RIPE region.
> 
> ISPs that are serious about providing IPv6 usually have 200 customers,
> and are willing to offer all of them IPv6 services.
> 
> People need to understand that, as of today, *nobody* can be *sure*
> to have 200 IPv6-enabled customers in 2 years.  If the customers have
> no interest, there won't be any.
> 
> The key item is "have the *intention* to provide services to 200 (or more)
> customers".
> 
> Being overly restrictive in the IPv6 allocation policy is a bad signal -
> there is enough address space, and the global routing table will easily
> cope with 2000 prefixes per region - we should try to make people
> *accept* IPv6, not hinder its deployment based on some unreasonable
> fears.

Gert is correct. Indeed the LACNIC draft contains one very disturbing
phrase in this respect:

>> LACNIC shall encourage the use of private resources (whenever possible), 
>> both for IPv4 RFC 1918 and IPv6 addresses as well as for ASN (64512-65535). 

This isn't the place for a polemic about RFC 1918 or ASNs. But we should
certainly not encourage the use of "private resources" for IPv6 addresses.
Right now there are no private resources (site locals are being deprecated,
and their replacement is not yet agreed), and we need to do everything
to discourage barriers in IPv6. I suggest deleting the reference to IPv6
in this sentence.

Regards
   Brian

P.S. I've deleted the CC to the ICANN Board. I suppose it was put there
by "Jeff Williams." Whoever plays "Jeff Williams" on the Internet seems
to enjoy cross posting to irrelevant lists.