[137159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Feb 9 17:34:39 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D52E59B.4070904@nic-naa.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:32:51 -0800
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> well, i've argued new gtld registry operators in general do not =
benefit from a manditory v6 reachability requirement at transition to =
delegation, a position unpopular with v6 evangelicals and others who =
suppose that new gtld registry operators will exist to serve "the next =
billion users" rather than to offer alternate name space views to the =
existing {b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles.
>=20
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the =
existing {b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 =
reachability as well since those will also be adding IPv6 capabilities =
in the next year or two.
It's not that I think you only serve the future. It's that we think you =
are failing to recognize that IPv6 is now
and that what is IPv4 today will be at least dual-stack tomorrow.
> related, i've argue that new gtld registry operators in general do not =
benefit from a manditory dnssec requirement, a position unpopular with =
dnssec evangelicals and others who suppose that new gtld registry =
operators will exist to serve ecommerce with sufficient generality, =
persistence, and volume to make them more attractive targets for =
rational economic exploits than existing, unsigned zones.
>=20
> for those not keeping track, icann's laundry list of mandatory to =
implements includes v6 reachibility, and dnssec, shortly after the date =
of contract, so significantly prior to the operator acquiring =
operational experience, and of course, cctlds, and existing gtlds, are =
under no obligation to sign their zones.
>=20
The latter part of that paragraph is an unfortunate artifact of a =
pre-existing contract without those requirements.
I would expect those requirements to be added at contract renewal.
> i don't think of these positions as "naysaing" either v6 or dnssec, =
just the it-must-be-done-now claims of urgency and universality of some =
of the respective advocates for "sensible stuff", who because they hold =
the right opinion, inform icann's ssac.
>=20
I think that the requirements are reasonable and that it is unfortunate =
that they cannot be added to the existing GTLD contracts.
Owen
