| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Tom,Thanks again for your interesting feedback - I found all of your comments had insightful views on the future challenges we will face with IPv6, and the only reason I will be picking and choosing particular points is because of time constraints. I would encourage others on this list to consider your other points, especially concerning monitoring of v6 vs. v4 connectivity status.
While I acknowledge your comments about sunset dates vs. conditions, I'm concerned that the current industry approach to IPv6 seems to avoid setting any expectations of implementation timeframes. I completely agree that a managed IPv6 deployment across the Internet is impossible, but I feel that an expression from the Internet community of some desired milestone dates would at least set reference goals for the industry, even if those dates almost inevitably need to be changed.
I'd therefore still rather express a date as to when we think IPv4 allocations *should* no longer be required, even if it needs to be adjusted later. I say this not because I would believe that such a date would be correct (although it should have some reasoning behind it), but because a policy without a date will not set any industry targets towards working without IPv4.
[Which date should be chosen would be a subject for its own debate, although I'd still instinctively prefer something closer to 10 years from IANA exhaustion than 20 years.]
I agree with you though that it would probably be better to omit discussions from the proposal of what should happen after the sunset point, and leave that to be the subject of a proposal closer to the sunset time.
If the proposal were to be redesigned in the way that you and I have been discussing, then should its IPv4 allocations be restricted to new (IPv6) entrants *only* (rather than new and existing as in the current draft)? My initial reaction is "yes", with existing members being encouraged and expected to make preparations for IP4/IPv6 support from their existing IPv4 pools and remaining applications before APNIC exhaustion. The flipside of this would be that I'd expect an adjustment of the amount of address space reserved by the proposal.
I feel that you and I are reaching convergence on several basic concepts (undoubtedly with a some differences still remaining! :-) ). Like you, I'd now like to hear from the authors as to their opinions on the issues we've been discussing.
Regards, David
