quietly....

Wed Feb 2 10:59:51 UTC 2011

On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:05 PM, George Herbert wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
>>> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within
>>> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times
>>> the normal request rate... that would be a "rush".
>> 
>> Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6 prefixes?
> 
> More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an
> initial allocation and requiring more.  People asking for the first
> one just indicates initial adoption rates.
> 
> Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the impression
> that IPv6 allocations are designed to avoid that being necessary for
> an extended period of time.  If that is not true, then that's a flag.
> 
There are definitely policy changes needed in order to make this true. I doubt
that there are many network operators that have deployed enough IPv6 to
be up against that wall yet. I know of only one.

ARIN Policy Proposal 121 is intended to improve that situation significantly
and also reduce the probability for human-factors related outages in the future
in IPv6.

Owen