Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the v6 requirement
On 12/26/10 9:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Though from reading through the ARIN PPML list, I don't get the impression there is much support for the notion that everyone can't just do IPV6. - in fact a least one person says they can just go to t a colo site site that has IPv6, so this may be an uphill struggle. ARIN doesn't necessarily share ICANN's diversity goals, nor does it necessarily share the JAS WG distinction between applications "for" some purpose associated with developing economies and applications "from" developing economies. Site recommendations of the form "just use {60 Hudson, 56 Marietta, ...} are not useful. Finally, the issue of when applicants are at risk of adverse outcomes arising from the contractual requirement alone appears to be a generally difficult issue to convey. Everywhere. Also I do not really see how: - a program for emergencies would be used for applicant support - it would make a whit of difference to ICANN requirements for IPv6. This doesn't appear to be a question. A question I have, even in ARIN's territory, is the assumption the IPv6 is available in a sufficient number of collocation sites a reasonable assumption. And how reasonable is this on a world wide basis. Does anyone have fact of the number of colo sites that support v6 in the world? Testable assumptions. However, not identical to the issue of ensuing CI PI asset availability by policy, and therefore to the possibility that the v6 requirement arises from registry operational necessity, rather than the hypothetical resolution requirement for v6-only provisioned users. Note also that "world wide" is not "in developing economies". See below, where advertised availability at regional IXPs is used rather than "colo". Also how long does an ARIN PDP usually take, i.e would this policy be in effect by the time the applicant process started. 123 is now on the AC agenda. However, given your observation above at "Also I do not really see how:", no answer could possibly be relevant. This is "below".Unfortunately, afnog.org (hosted by AfriNIC) blew a power supply on the 23rd, and it isn't back in service yet -- no spare power supply, no spare server, so a continental Network Operators Group server is down "hard" with no estimated time of repair. Lacking that as a data source, looking over a global list of IXPs there is the following: The Angola-IXP in Luanda has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The Botswana Internet Exchange in Gaborone has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The KINshasa Internet eXchange point in Kinshasa has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The Côte d'Ivoire Internet eXchange Point in Abidjan has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The Malawi Internet Exchange in Blantyre has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The Mozambique Internet Exchange in Maputo has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The Internet Exchange Point of Nigeria in Lagos discussion of AfriNIC sponsored IPv6 training contains the following observation: "It is discouraging to know that only one ISP is using IPv6 in Nigeria" The Nepal Internet Exchange NPIX in Kathmandu has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The Tanzania Internet eXchange TIX in Dar es Salaam has only one IPv6 enabled route server at address 2001:43f8::1/64, and only one (cisco) sample config file for TIX connecting service providers. The Arusha Internet eXchange has no IPv6 service documentation or disclosed routes. The Uganda Internet Exchange Point in Kampala is non-responsive. The Swaziland Internet Exchange in Mbabane is non-responsive. The attached map was found at the Côte d'Ivoire Internet eXchange Point. Eric Attachment:
africa_isp_2007.png
|
