[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI for HOSTING
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Dec 22 13:08:41 CET 2009
On 22 Dec 2009, at 11:14, Max Tulyev wrote: > So I think we should ASAP change IPv6 PI policy to let hosting be the > issue for IPv6 PI assignment. Max, I'm not sure this would result in anything useful. It might even be harmful by encouraging or facilitating route de-aggregation. You are quite right to note the chicken-and-egg problems IPv6 faces and the reasons why IPv6 deployment has been slow. However these factors still exist no matter how an organisation gets its IPv6 space. For instance most content providers don't offer stuff over IPv6 because there are very few people using IPv6. So, in general, from their perspective there's a small audience for v6 content that doesn't justify the costs of providing it. That isn't likely to change even if the content providers got v6 space "for free". I doubt address allocation policies are having an impact on IPv6 deployment or uptake. IMO the drivers for that have still to emerge: like the lack of v4 space (or its price compared to v6) or the operational pain of even more NAT and ALGs.