[125235] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Durack)
Sat Apr 10 17:35:37 2010
In-Reply-To: <4BC0E972.7@foobar.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:35:21 -0400
From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>
> I'm puzzled as to why you might think that this would incentivise
> meaningful deployment of ipv6.
>
> Nick
>
>
It removes the hurdle of working with the RIR and/or getting
management buy-in to go negotiate for number resources.
(Our personal experience as a community/end-user network is that ARIN
wants justification for the minimum address space one can live with.
At this early stage of deployment, that raises concerns over whether
we have a workable address plan in place. We worked with ARIN to
eventually get a /41 assigned. With the prospect of assigning /56s to
every customer port we have on an edge switch, that's not going to
last long. You can probably argue we got the initial request wrong,
but it still means we have to go back and negotiate again, which we
haven't found to be much fun. That's holding us back.)
--
Tim:>
