[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Hi,

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:29:37AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:
> every policy that makes IPv6 adoption a must can help slow down IPv4 
> allocation rate and in the meanwhile will even lower IPv4 maket value
> that's why there is the so called "no solution"
> sorry for brevity, family time....

The problem with that is: by imposing "YOU MUST DO IPv6!" on requestors
that only have a /22 yet (assuming that we could find a meaningful way
to check IPv6 deployment that cannot be cheated) - you're not going to
solve the thing that people are complaining about in this thread:
"old LIRs that have enough IPv4 space and are not deploying IPv6!"

New LIRs - holders of /22 - have all the incentives to deploy IPv6
already (because they do not have enough IPv4 to number everything with
public v4 addresses) - but how would such a policy incentivize a big
content provider that has enough v4, is not growing in number of external
visible services (= doesn't need more v4 addresses), and has no v6?

These are the sore spots today: content and cloud providers - and neither
are likely to fall under this policy.

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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160522/b8613f0f/attachment.sig>