Re: [ga] The best IPvX deal ever ?

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 17:01 22/08/2007, Danny Younger wrote:
> Interesting proposition.  I would ask if the NRO has
> discussed the issue or has adopted a position on this
> matter?

I am not sure the NRO would agree up front, they would certainly meet 
difficulties in routing and table increases. But they should pay 
attention to  it because it is a politically tempting proposition. 
What would be of real interest would be a political debate where we 
could propose a general agreement over "give every man his IP" as the 
best slogan and technical target.

There are two market/political problems with IPv6 (aside IETF/IAB 
making it work) is to make the people demanding it, and for that 
making them aware. A political controversy can rise the awareness. A 
good slogan with a few good application can make people demand it. 
For years they have tried to find a "killing" application in vain. 
The killing application I know is to pay attention to the user needs 
- what IETF does not do, considering they will care by themselves. To 
pay attention to users is very simple: it is to protect the 
applications they can develop from other applications numbering 
interferences in the user ID area.

Unfortunately this does not belong to the IETF current culture and 
capacities. A good political slogan can lead Govs to discuss it among 
themselves and with RIR and make it work.

jfc




> --- JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > A proposition has been made (San Juan, Sebastien
> > Bachollet) which
> > starts being discussed in diplomatic circles and I
> > would like to see
> > commented by GA Members. This proposition is
> > generous, responsible,
> > feasible, of common interest, but may have some
> > objections. This
> > proposition is that USA and Europe give the pool of
> > their remaining
> > IPv4 addresses to the other RIRs and start by force
> > to only allocate
> > IPv6 addresses, while decreasing the address
> > shortage urgency for
> > less developped areas until they can plan to benefit
> > from the
> > acquired experience and most probable industrial
> > cost reductions.
> >
> > This would probably call for one year or two for
> > this to be
> > formalized, permitting to inform American and
> > European users and ISPs
> > and implement solutions under an equal opportunity
> > and technical
> > pressure basis. For once third world countries would
> > not pay for the
> > cost of the developed countries innovation. Also
> > developed countries
> > would be used as test beds, permitting market
> > stabilized IPv6
> > solutions to further deploy in other areas at lower
> > cost. It could
> > also reduce the cost of the technical transition,
> > due to a clear
> > market transition.
> >
> > The current ROAP debate at IETF/IAB shows that IPv6
> > is not yet fully
> > stabilized, this means that there would be no real
> > advantage to USA
> > and Europe during the transition period, while the
> > other areas would
> > stay with (for now) cheaper IPv4 systems, until IPv6
> > can become
> > cheaper in their turn. The attention this
> > proposition would receive
> > by Governments could also help to finance some R&D
> > along the RFC 3869
> > lines (call from IAB for non-commercial R&D
> > financial sponsoring).
> >
> > The impact on users could be tremendous as
> > individual host (home,
> > mobile, hosting services), and myriads of possible
> > domain name
> > extensions (including semantic addressing) could
> > bluntly develop.
> >
> > This would also restart the debate on the namespace
> > (DNS, IPv4 and
> > IPv6) ownership, and possibly help getting a better
> > perspective of
> > what ICANN should really do to protect itself (how
> > an obsolete or
> > inadequate ICANN can really protect the
> > registrants).
> > jfc
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your 
> story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/