[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals (2008-06 and 2009-04)

Sander Steffann wrote the following on 22/06/2009 16:41:
> 
> Do organisations that don't implement IPv6 cause a problem for the
> community (and do we need policy to prevent that), or do they only cause
> problems for themselves (and should we only limit the amount of IPv4 space
> they can get)?

Arguably yes, they cause a problem for the community, but I think that
forcing v6 deployment via policy is both wrong and doomed to failure.

> We should also look at possible loopholes. I don't think we want an LIR
> to give IPv6 access to a handful of customers just to be able to get
> another big block of IPv4 space.

And this is a point also.  There is nothing stopping someone from asking
for a v4 allocation along with a v6 allocation and then doing nothing
with the v6 allocation.  It's not like reclaiming the v4 allocation will
be easy.

> Once we have discussed this basic issue I'll steer the discussion back to
> the other differences between the proposals. Please keep the discussion
> on this topic for now.

I realise I'm repeating points here to a certain extent but I feel
they're worth making.  As with the others I do believe that, in the long
run, the cost of not deploying IPv6 will be your business.  We need to
develop policy that will divide the remaining IPv4 resources in the
fairest way possible and shackling the two together will not, imo,
produce that fairness.

Brian.