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

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 05:46:17PM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
> > For what purpose?  When making statements like this please explain what your underlying intentions are. We make policy for a purpose and if the purpose isn't clear then it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the solution space.
> 
> Easy. The current IPv6 deploy makes me cry like a little girl. NOBODY 
> (as percentage) is deploying it in their customer/backone/whatever network.

Well, we're most certainly not there yet, but at least in my neck of the
woods (DE/CH), IPv6 uptake has been quite good in the last years - some
client ISPs have reached over 20% of their customers, which translates
to quite a bit of IPv6 traffic - and quite a few high profile content
providers have also IPv6-enabled their offerings (youtube, netflix, 
facebook, ...).

Now, the interesting question here is:

 - who will be requesting that /22?  Will it make a difference in the 
   big picture if they deploy IPv6 "soonish" or not?

 - will it make a difference if we force them to provide some sort of 
   "look I have IPv6!" dance?  (We had this discussion every now and then
   in the last years, including "give every LIR a /32 right away!" and
   the end consensus was along the lines of "if they want to deploy, it
   is easy enough to get space, so forcing an IPv6 prefix on them won't 
   make a difference")  Deploying IPv6 is more than "setup a tunnel 
   somewhere and anounce your prefix", so we should consider whether the
   incentives we give are effective, or just theater.

 - who will benefit, and who will be hurt by such a requirement?  Right now
   we have a policy which is actually hurting people that already *have*
   deployed IPv6, just not the right type of addresses...  (because they
   have to get their own PA and renumber out of the PI they have already
   deployed).  *This* is certainly not a useful incentive.


I officially do not have an opinion here, but I hope I'm asking the right
questions to reach some useful policy at the end :-)  (but indeed, I am
known to be in favour of fairly simple and easy to implement policies)

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141013/919884fd/attachment.sig>