Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purpose

To: yi_chu_01 at yahoo dot com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purposes
From: (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:55:57 +0900 (JST)
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <452600.45483.qm at web33107.mail.mud dot yahoo dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <m2vd82pr5t.wl%randy@psg.com> <452600.45483.qm@web33107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Yi,

Thank you for your comment.

 | I think any deployment decision should be done within the confines of the 
 | available resources, IP addresses included.  If one does not have the 
 | justification and v6 addresses to deploy 6rd, then one should consider a 
 | different deployment approach, not the other way around.
 | 
 | Any thoughts?

I can see what you're saying, but in that sense, large address block
holders (maybe large ISPs) can use any deployment protocols but small
ISPs can use only limited deployment protocols. I think address block
size should not become a limitation to select deployment protocols,
especially in the IPv6 deployment phase (so I added a condition
this proposal is for a limited time only).

Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki