[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Mon Apr 18 17:56:18 CEST 2016
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another > IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities > to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. > They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an > objective accomplishment. If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all customers who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to support this policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue burden on RIPE to verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question for them to qualify for another /22 after 18 months. > So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a > certain level. Checkboxing 3 star IPv6 RIPEness is easy, unfortunately it has very little to do with real actual widespread IPv6 deployment. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]