[address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 using an IPv4 policy to force IPv6 adoption
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Jan 22 22:14:10 CET 2015
Hi, On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:38:39PM +0100, Stefan Schiele wrote: > I don't consider this argument as being addressed by simply asking the > RIPE NCC to send out clear signals that IPv6 is important. There is a > difference between being forced to request an IPv6 allocation to receive > IPv4 space from the final /8 and the RIPE NCC sending out some signals > regarding IPv6. It is, but I have to make a decision how to go ahead if many members of the community support the proposal, while a single argument is brought in opposition - "stop the proposal" (which would mean "nothing gets anywhere, ever") or "understand the concerns and find a way that will at least bring some compromise". [..] > The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and > therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal. It will not - people who want the last /22 for speculation can have it today perfectly fine. Forcing them to take a (free) /32 with it will not make them more conservative - it sends a message ("hey! think of IPv6!") and we can convey that message in other ways, too. > By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer > market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address > space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either. This is handwaving based on assumptions... Anyway, there is a group working on a proposal to prevent exactly this: speculation with the last /22 allocations ("open LIR, grab /22, sell it, close LIR, open new LIR, ..."). The policy proposal discussed here has really no influence on people that want to speculate - nothing stops them form accepting the free /32 together with the /22, sell the /22, return the /32, and close the LIR... 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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150122/6dbf64df/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 using an IPv4 policy to force IPv6 adoption
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]