[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 ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Mon Apr 18 21:06:27 CEST 2016
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, at 17:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > 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. If it can get more support, why not ? 5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't bother me) We have already discussed this with NCC staff, things are complex, but any new idea is welcome.
- 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 ]