[LINK] Fwd: Expert Panel: The Seven Stages of IPv6 Adoption
stephen at melbpc.org.au
stephen at melbpc.org.au
Fri Mar 27 03:35:11 EST 2009
> there are only three tunnel providers actually in Australia,
> and only one of those is a product - Internode
I want to ask a question, Karl, and, you and others are certainly
kowledgable regarding IPv6. There's a concern that with the large
increase in address spaces (and, although that's obviously a good
thing) might there be a danger of our system, 'getting away' from
orderly housekeeping mechanisms? I ask because IPv6 involves HUGE
numbers of new addresses, and it's important they be handled well.
Obviously, one most important tool for ensuring accountability is
responsibility. Presuming that IP address 'abuse' might naturally
increase over time, and that our ISPs whom are assigned these big
new numbers, and thus 'responsible' for them might perhaps become
somewhat 'lax' in their administration (understandable, given the
numbers we are talking) do you, and others Linkers think that our
present accountability tool ie apnic whois (which currently works
reasonably well) will be up to this task? As will be our Au ISPs?
With such big numbers one can well imagine it might become normal
for a feeling of, "well we've got so many, we can't look after em
all, not like we used to" enter into future ISP thinking. One can
well understand that happening .. on the plentiful-equals-neglect
scenario. It'd be normal human nature to think like that, perhaps.
So, do you, or any Linker imagine this might become a problem for
orderly and responsible Au net housekeeping? Like any market when
huge new resources become available, the price per unit drops. So
it's just possible that our good standards of ISP caretaking, and
indeed just care in general, will decline. Is this a concern? And
if not, should it be? Maybe ISPs may need tax-breaks etc to cope?
If Fred Public can be assigned thousands of addresses, it will be
very much easier to 'play up' with some them and be irresponsible.
I can't imagine that ISPs will be able to afford, with dirt cheap
address, to cope as well as they currently do. Should we look at
this? Perhaps our ISPs should be paid to be 'sherrifs' of our new
and vast, digital landscapes they will be responsible for, on the
behalf of our Australian government? Maybe they should? It's our
'dot au' territory, and needs good 'policing' same as 'real' land.
So, there seems a reasonable argument that our Au Gov PAY ISPs to
provide any extensive new protective-services that will be needed,
simply because it's a whole new, and immense, Australian teritory.
Eg, re IPv6 .. and whois .. Scott says, "For what it's worth, the
registry I get my IPv6 network from has just (about two weeks ago)
added the ability for users to 'block' their personal information
from being displayed in whois. Previously (my registry) forced all
users details to be available but due to complaints from many users
they have changed this to show only basic details (&) not including
email address/etc." (Link archives, Sat Jan 31 05:55:16 EST 2009)
Is this really the way we want our .au namespace to go? Can't help
thinking our ISPs are going to need help, and there is an argument
that our government should pick up the tab to manage a responsible
More information about the Link