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

["Per Heldal" heldal@localhost]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:26:50 +0000, "Tim Streater"
> 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.

Your organisation shouldn't have a problem getting adsress-space It is
in everyone's best interest to get as many people as possible from the
research community involved. 

> 
> IPv6 is supposed to be an available and operational service,

really?

> 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. 

I don't disagree, but:

* The current policy will work just fine combined with a
production-quality shim6 implementation, complete with full support for
traffic-engineering and load-balancing from all vendors. I believe that
still is a few years down the road.

* Current policies and current v6 technology does not meet requirements
from important groups like content providers wrt multi-homing and
provider-independence. V6 could make a great p2p network if v6 can help
eliminate NAT though ;)

To me this mean there's a conflict here. Not only do people disagree wrt
how things should be done, but also about what they want to achieve. 

//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/