IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 22 November 2012 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD1121F88D5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:52:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yQZJXV63BdeJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:52:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F6D21F867C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAMHqTmo004411; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:52:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1353606755; bh=ocoirG1OOd6etwlOQXITBUCnZBnPXda45Np0ThdBjZU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ClJitr1OmnyJBYPRp+ZZ8uVBEzD00BPV6lpVPNbtc+1lkvbuAtqeeG/YmQKyQcsUo 2bjoZIENtamJkG/Q7SKGQxILUacszNij+r8vthkj7KCqTaNht2XESQ/XyIz5POX9jj 8AdG11gUHFUwkEc1AaYcYGj7g41R8m5NH0MO2eJ0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1353606755; i=@resistor.net; bh=ocoirG1OOd6etwlOQXITBUCnZBnPXda45Np0ThdBjZU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ko4k0It9dYGS/9zDK4O8fzGEclEDeoc+oOlhtkzzFFAsLzzaHTd5PgVXFJo4z80XG t0Hxhozh7slAlgJkjsJxpYDSqtLNxelBohdTs5okX1+pfarTDkuvPs+ly9aOreS3pn rG0c2EKQn3XZmK977ynwERxv6sSXcVlePjt/2eqY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121122090618.09887470@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:41:49 -0800
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <50AE518A.6080004@bogus.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20121122003329.0b7cb9a8@elandnews.com> <50AE2D7F.2060401@gmail.com> <50AE518A.6080004@bogus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:52:43 -0000

Hi Joel,
At 08:23 22-11-2012, joel jaeggli wrote:
>I don't think it's fair to characterize the afrinic or lacnic ipv6 
>practices as lacking in zeal, they aren't. The fact that there's a 
>disequalibrium in run rate means some applications are slightly less 
>screwed than others and nothing more.

I didn't read Brian's comment as being about registry IPv6 
practices.  I would describe it as the urgency of the strategy being 
influenced by content or application service providers still being 
able to get IPv4 address space from their registry.  The wasted 
opportunity would be about continuing with a IPv4-only strategy while 
other parts of the world gain IPv6 experience.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email