Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

Eric Brunner-Williams brunner at nic-naa.net
Wed Feb 9 13:06:03 CST 2011


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.

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.

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.

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.

-e




More information about the NANOG mailing list