6bone Prequalification for Sub-TLA assignment

[Perry E. Metzger]

Bob Fink <fink@es.net> writes:
> If Sub-TLAs are given away too easily, they will be encouraging non-ipv6
> providers to get theirs now, i.e., the land rush model which could easily
> fill up the TLA/Sub-TLA space with networks, sites, and organizations that
> simply want to make sure they have a TLA/Sub-TLA, even if they don't need
> one now or really qualify (i.e., they have no intent on putting up IPv6
> service and/or are simply not higher level transits).
> 
> Alternatively, if Sub-TLAs are too hard to get, especially in the early
> days of IPv6 deployment, it will discourage providers from putting up IPv6
> service, may give the impression that IPv6 doesn't help the address space
> problem at all, thus greatly impeding the progress of IPv6 deployment and
> transition, and even pose a legal risk to the registries.

I think we should err on the side of liberalism. The whole advantage
of IPv6 is that we don't break the IP end to end model by forcing
people into NATs. If its too hard to get v6 address space, no one is
going to have any incentive to move to v6. If you can get v6 space
when you couldn't get v4 space, people will start wanting it.



Perry