RE: [ipv6-wg] RIPE NCC Makes Record Number of IPv6 Allocations

[<michael.dillon@localhost]

> Working with publich *shame* is a bad idea - OTOH, putting up 
> a Top10 list of prefixes that have been stable for months, 
> and that actually have services inside, would be nice for 
> those ISPs... if it could be done in a reasonable way, which it can't.

Yes, public shame is a bad idea that will backfire anyway.

However, in 2009 and 2010, companies that have not deployed
enough IPv6 will be in crisis because they will begin to
lose new orders due to a lack of IPv4 addresses to connect
those new customers. This will trigger a wave of takeovers
as companies who are further ahead in IPv6 deployment
are able to buy the weaker ones at bargain prices.

In order to evaluate the strength/weakness of a company's
IPv6 deployment, it seems to me that a better measure is
the amount of traffic going through IPv6 public peering
points and the amount of IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4 that
travels though IPv4 peering points. Stability is not a very
good measure and the existence of an IPv6 announcement doesn't
tell you anything about whether or not the company is using
the IPv6 connectivity.

--Michael Dillon