[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:42:16PM +0100, Stefan Schiele wrote:
> Let me explain that with a simple case: Our company is a LIR for just a 
> few month now; the main reason why we signed up on April this year was 
> that we started to run out of IP addresses and wanted to get that /22 
> IPv4 allocation (we already had a /24). And for us the only reason to 
> deploy IPv6 was that we had to request an allocation in the first place.

So did you actually *deploy* IPv6, as in "every new service you run and
install has IPv6 on it, every new product you build supports IPv6", or 
did you just *get* an IPv6 block, put it on a shelf, and leave it there?

I'm impressed if our existing policy actually had such a big impact,
and it wasn't just "the last nudge to get going" - which we could easily
achieve by having the NCC IPRAs ensure that LIRs asking for a /22 are
aware of IPv6 ("have you considered deploying IPv6?").

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141210/dc6af74c/attachment.sig>