Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

[Tim Streater <tim.streater@localhost]

At 13:38 16/01/2006, Per Heldal wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:12:19 +0100, "Marc van Selm"
><marc.van.selm@localhost said:
>[snip]
>> 
>> Again, I think we have a solid work around but looking at the controversy
>> that 
>> this discussion has caused, a non ISP-centric policy would be useful.
>> 
>
>The policy might seem ISP-centric, but that's just a coincidence. It
>reflects the opinion of many in the ops-community that it doesn't make
>sense to migrate to IPv6 until it is able to provide more than just an
>extended address-space. At least not as long as there is
>no *real* shortage of v4-addresses. Unfortunately, very few seem willing
>to admit that in public. The current policy will work in a future that
>has mechanisms to separate identifiers from locators. Maybe some people
>should revise their short-term expectations wrt IPv6.

Notwithstanding this, there is some pressure in the research community for v6 to be available. And this translates downwards, at least for me, into a requirement to get some PI v6 space for a transit network.

IPv6 is supposed to be an available and operational service, in which case the policy should cover all reasonable requirements. If it is not the case (i.e., not an operational or available service), but is still considered to be under development, not yet needed to be deployed, might need to be changed to introduce geographical addressing, or whatever else, then presumably this needs to be made evident and debated in a different forum. 

-- Tim