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

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:12:19 +0100, "Marc van Selm"
<marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int> 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.

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