Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Feb 9 16:32:51 CST 2011


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.
> 
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.
> 
> 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.
> 
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.
> 
I think that the requirements are reasonable and that it is unfortunate that they cannot be added to the existing GTLD contracts.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list