On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> 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.
>
My claim is that about the time these zones are rolling out, the registrants
currently using v4 provisioned hosting services and end users currently using
v4 provisioned eyeball networks will also, at least in some cases, be using
dual stack and/or v6 services.
> 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.
>
You do not have to abandon v4 to deploy v6. That's an absurd claim.
> 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 ...
>
Again, the need for v6 is not predicated on the abandonment of v4.
> 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.
>
I believe AfriNIC has a /12 like any other RIR. I'm not sure what you are
saying here.
>> 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.
>
Yes.
> 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?
>
I'm not sure what you mean by _sparce_.
My claim is that by 4q2012, I expect we will see much much wider IPv6
deployment and potentially eyeball
networks that are primarily or exclusively IPv6 with at best limited or
degraded IPv4 support through multiple
layers of NAT.
As such, I think that registries spinning up in 3q2012 should be required to
have IPv6 support. yes.
> 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.
>
If you define soon as prior to 2q2012, then, yes, I'm fine with that. However,
that seems to be about a quarter
earlier than you think these things will be starting up. Since you seem to be
claiming they should get some
period beyond that where they don't need to run IPv6 (I'm not sure where
they're supposed to get their
addresses to run on IPv4 by then, frankly), I think your definition of soon and
mine are probably not
compatible.
> pessimally, the requirement is present at the date when applications are
> submitted, that is, a year from today.
>
I don't think that 1q2012 is especially out of line given a 2q2012 target date.
> 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.
>
I think it is irresponsible at this point to consider deploying any major
network infrastructure without requiring IPv6 capabilities at deployment. IANA
is already out of IPv4. If you expect these systems to start getting deployed
in 3q2012, then, you're talking about a time which is likely to be well past
RIR exhaustion in most cases. I suppose they can get a /22 from APNIC, but,
other than that, where do you expect these organizations to even get IPv4 to
work with?
> thanks for your difference,
> -e
>
Any time.
Owen
