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

Sorry for joining the discussion too late Gert, only caught my eye today :) 

Regards, 
James 


> On 22 Jan 2015, at 23:01, "Kennedy, James" <jkennedy at libertyglobal.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> 
>> On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson at heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson at heanet.ie>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Sorry I missed your talk, sounds interesting.
> I wouldn't say this proposal is negative, I just haven't read anyone explain how having an *any* IPv6 requirement negatively impacts IPv6 internet growth. How could it be worse than useless? Would it deter or slow a company's IPv6 adoption? I don't see how. In fact the IPv6 requirement in the current policy actually got Stefan Schiele's organisation on their unplanned road to v6, just like I said having their own v6 block may spark the interest of an organisation that previously only thought about IPv4:
> 
>> On 22 Jan 2015, at 17:42, "Stefan Schiele" <st at sct.de<mailto:st at sct.de>> wrote:
>> 
>> The current policy actually had a positive effect on our company. The main reason for us to sign up as an LIR was to get more IPv4 addresses; and since we had to request an IPv6 allocation we wanted to have this set up and running. If it had been possible to get that /22 without an IPv6 address space we would probably still be using IPv4 only (the IPv4 address space we currently have is large enough for our business for the foreseeable future).
>> 
>> Since this policy had a positive effect on IPv6 awareness for us I simply deduce that it should have a positive effect for some other companies as well.
> 
> 
>> On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson at heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson at heanet.ie>> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, good measurements are very valuable, but more valuable than increasing the actual number of IPv6 adoptions and usage? I think that should be the focus.
> 
> 
>> As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about
>> IPv6 to future applicants.
> 
> Indeed the NCC is doing a very good job of promoting IPv6. However reality is many organisations live outside the RIPE bubble and just want a last IPv4 block. Giving them a free IPv6 allocation to go home and play with (immediately, or in time) kinda seems like a good thing to me.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> James
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <dave.wilson at heanet.ie<mailto:dave.wilson at heanet.ie>> wrote:
> 
> 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<http://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
> 
>