[address-policy-wg] 2009-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment)

On 7 Apr 2009, at 11:46, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html

I don't know if it's entirely fair and just to hold v4 to ransom in  
order to drive v6 adoption, but as someone who has done v6 rollouts on  
his own network already, and is paid to roll v6 out onto others'  
networks, I appreciate the sentiment and think that healthy to set our  
minds wandering and get conversation started.

If it's good to restrict the allocation and assignment of v4 resources  
to organisations who have a stated v6 deployment policy, then why do  
we need to wait until the final /8 has been allocated to the NCC  
before we begin such a policy ?  Perhaps we should have a phased  
process that asks organisations how they are deploying v6 on the PA  
and PI request forms, and then future requests from that organisation,  
or related organisations are refused if the deployment has not started.

Why was /27 selected rather than /26 or /25 ?  Since most deployments  
have multiple, separate infrastructure assignments, and services/user  
assignments, it seems that a /27 as a minimum allocation is far to  
small to promote any degree of aggregation whatsoever.  This policy is  
therefore counter to one of RIPE's regularly stated aims - to promote  
route aggregation.  The counter argument to this is that I might as  
well accept that we the side of common sense has lost the v4  
aggregation debate, and v4 after-market sales will drive deagg  
further, so why should we care ?

On the other hand, perhaps this policy will be seen as an ipv4 life  
extension policy.  We do not want to muddy the message that we send to  
the community.  V4's free pool will soon be gone.  Do not gamble your  
company on policies designed to extend the availability of a very  
scarce resource.

Maybe we can pool some of the ideas in 2009-03 and -04, and the  
community response, and build a solid run down policy that encourages  
v6 adoption, but doesn't pretend to be able to extend the life of v4.

Andy