[address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)

Hello James,

On 22/01/2015 12:38, Kennedy, James wrote:
> Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? 
> I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market. 

Honestly, I don't think it would, no. We'd get some anecdotes like we
already have, but nothing systematic.

This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the
policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change.
Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than
nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68
is that it's worse than useless.

Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6
assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6,
because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because
they had to do so to get a /22.

As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about
IPv6 to future applicants. That's something that doesn't belong in the
policy text, but is absolutely pertinent to this proposal, and my
feeling is that it'll be an overall improvement. More importantly, it's
something that can be worked on over time so that we do end up with a
systematic improvement.

(So to be clear: I support the policy as is in last call.)

All the best,
Dave

-- 
Dave Wilson, Project Manager                        web:   www.heanet.ie
HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1         tel: +353-1-660-9040
Registered in Ireland, no 275301                    fax: +353-1-660-3666