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

> Because there are so many differences I want to focus the 
> discussion on a specific question at this point in time: "Do 
> we (this working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements 
> in the policy?"

No. 
It would be wrong to favour the foresighted organizations who
are deploying IPv6 because they are already in a stronger position
since they have IPv6 in production or in test mode.

> I can see the benefit (stimulate native IPv6 deployment) of 
> such requirements, but I can also see downsides (for example 
> organisations that need IPv4 space but can't implement IPv6 
> for some reason).

I haven't seen evidence that this kind of thing will stimulate IPv6
deployment. The decision makers responsible for approving investment
in IPv6, are not likely to take note of the details of RIPE policy.
The only thing that really matters at that level is that IPv4
will runout, and that runout is projected to happen as early
as two years from now. Adding more details just muddies the waters
of that clear message, and would hurt IPv6 deployment more than
helping it.

> 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)?

Yes, they cause a problem for the Internet community, but also for
themselves because they will likely go out of business. Every few
years there are circumstances in an industry that cause the stronger
companies to take over the business of the weaker ones by some 
means or other. IPv6 deployment readiness is likely to be an important
factor in this over the next few years, but RIPE is not responsible to
do anything about it, just as it was not RIPE's responsibility to do
anything about the telecoms collapse at the turn of the century.

--Michael Dillon