ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

TJ trejrco at gmail.com
Fri Apr 9 06:46:19 CDT 2010


In my experience ARIN/RIR policies have not been a noticeable barrier to
IPv6 adoption.

Lack of IA/security gear tops the list for my clients, with WAN Acceleration
a runner-up.

/TJ

On Apr 9, 2010 7:23 AM, "Joe Greco" <jgreco at ns.sol.net> wrote:

> > I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation.  I don't think ARIN
> > is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to
> > fix.
>
> I believe that anything at ARIN which the community at large and the
membership
> can come to consensus is broken will be relatively easy to fix.
>
> Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as
"working
> as intended" by much of the community and membership?

That's a great point.  Would you agree, then, that much of the community
and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6?

You can claim that's a bit of a stretch, but quite frankly, the RIR
policies, the sketchy support by providers, the lack of v6 support in
much common gear, and so many other things seem to be all conspiring
against v6 adoption.  I need only point to v6 adoption rates to support
that statement.

This is an impediment that I've been idly pondering for some years
now, which is why I rattle cages to encourage discussion whenever I
see a promising opportunity.

Put differently, you work in this arena too...  you've presumably
talked to stakeholders.  Can you list some of the reasons people have
provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6
policies regarding address space?


... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it th...



More information about the NANOG mailing list