Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

Wed Feb 9 23:08:53 UTC 2011

> 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.

so your claim is that to have a .cat, serving registrants currently 
using v4 provisioned hosting services, and end-users currently using 
v4 provisioned eyeball networks, and initially address and resources 
(but not names) currently extant in the com/net/org/biz/info 
namespaces [1], the .cat registry first has to be v6 reachable.

and this claim is true because the webhosting operators, primarily in 
Catalonia, who have v4 now, will themselves be v6 reachable in the 
next year or two ... i think this requires either the existing hosting 
operators abandon vhosting as a service model or abandon their 
existing v4 allocations.

now rinse and repeat for .nyc. the claim is somehow that the market 
for hosting operators (ok, the hosting lines of business of godaddy, 
tucows, enom, netsol, ... and their downstream resellers, which is 
statistically likely to have 51% of all .nyc registrations), and/or 
(your choice) the eyeball network operators for the tri-state area, 
are going to either abandon vhosting as a service model or abandon 
their existing v4 allocations ...

where the v6 ab initio convinces me some is the area i currently work 
on -- developing economies. nigeria is a good example, fewer than 
10^^5 computers, a population of 15x10^^7, and cell phone penetration 
rate approaching 1 in 3. even so, the number of v6 prefixes in afnic's 
inventory of allocations is ... very small ... for all of africa as a 
region.

> 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.

if the window for applications opens 4 months after icann-41 (amman, 
jordan), in q42011, then delegations will occur as soon as q32012.

is your claim that registry operators where v6 is _sparce_, and/or 
where v6 eyeball networks are _sparce_, two years from today, are 
properly failed for technical reasons, two years from today, for lack 
of v6 capability?

if your claim is that v6 is mandatory to implement sometime soon, i'm 
fine with that rather flexible temporal requirement, but icann's 
current rules of the road are an application that isn't v6 ready at 
transition to delegation (roughly two years from now) fails.

pessimally, the requirement is present at the date when applications 
are submitted, that is, a year from today.

now there's still 24 months for icann legal staff to acquire clue, and 
for last week's press event to galvanize operators everywhere, so 
perhaps this (and its cognate, dnssec at transition to delegation) can 
be elided, but it is irresponsible to assert [2], independent of the 
purpose and position of a registry, that it must have a feature due to 
the universalist claims of advocates for a particular technology.

thanks for your difference,
-e

[1] after four years of operation, more than half of the new .cat 
registrations are for names which do not exist in the cnobi (& .es) 
set of name spaces.

[2] except for evangelicals who's job is to sell something.