[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

>
> While this has beed understood and accepted by some small players,
> deploying IPv6 doesn't spare you of situations like:
>  - residential users that will cancel and make you bad press because
>  their PS4 doesn't work. Not with CGN, and for the moment not over v6(*)
>  - business users that will just not sign with you if you cannot provide
>  them their block of X public v4 addresses. Be happy if they don't
>  explicitely ask you to disable IPv6.
>
> > I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of
> business.
>
> And once you have IPv6 as standard for everyone, but public dedicated v4
> either unavailable of extremely expensive, you do what ?
>
>
In what context are these arguments relevant?

The situations you describe and questions you ask are situations and issues
that already have occurred or been raised, due to the scarcity of IPv4, and
there is absolutely nothing we can do from a policy point to fix that.

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151031/ea295ba4/attachment.html>