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

Hi Gert,

Any windows dressing in the policy should be avoided .. If people want to implement v6, they will .. If people need to request v6 in order to obtain v6, they will.. But it doesn't mean they will deploy ... 

Based on that, I would say, strike the v6 requirement in order to request the last v4 /22 ..
Added to that, having people that deployed v6 based on PI having to turn in their space as it doesn't fit the requirement feels like a slap in the face and a waste of effort ... I would vote to have that fixed ... 

Erik Bais

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad

> Op 10 okt. 2014 om 21:20 heeft Gert Doering <gert at space.net> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:40:03PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> The proposal as it stands is window dressing because it requires only
>> tickbox-style compliance.  This is completely pointless.  Organisations
>> will either deploy ipv6 or they won't, and this decision will be made on
>> business merit rather than because a RIPE NCC IPRA delayed a /22 allocation
>> because of a policy violation.
> 
> Indeed, but that's what we have in the policy right *now* :-)
> 
> So maybe the question to the group should be:
> 
> - abandon the IPv6 requirement completely, and "who asks for their last
>   /22 gets it, done"
> 
> or
> 
> - come to some agreement about what sort of IPv6 window dressing should
>   be there, maybe only to serve as an awareness thing.  
> 
>   - *iff* that, what sort of IPv6 space should qualify?
> 
> 
> Onlookers might have noticed that this proposal should have ended it's
> current phase (discussion) quite a while ago, was extended, and should
> have ended now again - but we'll extend the discussion phase again, to
> clarify this point.  Then the proposers have a clear direction in which
> way to re-word their proposal for the next discussion phase - the current
> text certainly hasn't reached consensus yet.
> 
> 
> So, working group, please let us know what you think.
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- APWG chair
> -- 
> 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