RE: [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)

[<michael.dillon@localhost]

>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html

I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an
IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few
IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of
the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of
deploying IPv6?

In other words, if the policy is intended to only provide
enough IPv4 resources to ease the transition, shouldn't 
the policy also require that the LIR has taken the basic 
step of getting an IPv6 allocation?

It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement
about this being a quota or rationing system.

--Michael Dillon