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

Hi,

I support, provided that the RIPE NCC will inform the applicants about IPv6.

Regards,
George

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Martin Pels <martin.pels at ams-ix.net>
wrote:

> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:42:16 +0100
> Stefan Schiele <st at sct.de> wrote:
>
> > There are about 1000 new LIRs per year; if only this new LIRs would have
> > to request an IPv6 allocation I believe that a lot of them would want to
> > have this IPv6 allocation set up an running even if it's only because
> > they've received it (as it was the case for our company). And the same
> > applies to any existing LIR requesting their last /22.
> >
> >  From my point of view, the removal of the IPv6 requirement would slow
> > down the process of deploying IPv6; the more everyone is talking about
> > IPv6 to customers as well as to other providers (especially upstream
> > providers) the more public awareness of IPv6 increases and the more
> > selling and buying IPv6 services goes without saying - and that's what
> > we need.
>
> The proposal does not preclude the RIPE NCC from mentioning to LIRs who
> request
> their last /22 that there is such a thing as IPv6 and that an LIR can get
> an
> IPv6 allocation with one click if they want it. This can be done as part
> of the
> increased outreach that the impact analysis talks about.
>
> Kind regards,
> Martin
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141211/4c256cf7/attachment.html>