[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3

Hi,

...

> This is important, because if the period of time is short enough, we
> could ask all LIRs to tell RIPE what their IP address requirements
> are month by month. Then RIPE can see how much the inventory is 
> oversubscribed, and allocate the entire inventory at one time, dividing
> it up so that everyone runs out at the same time.
> 
> Why do this? So that we help ISPs who are providing IPv6 Internet access
> to get market penetration for their services by creating yet another 
> media event. A scheme like a) allocate one fixed block size, or b)
> starve
> everyone equally, will result in everyone running out at different
> times.
> This makes it harder to get the attention of the market and sell IPv6
> services in sufficient volume.

Two remarks on this:

{this is more a formal one]
(1) in a previous poll from Sander, we'd a large majority of comments against 
bundling IPv4 use with IPv6 (deployment). This looks like getting in through 
the backdoor.

(2) changing run-rates will render your approach useless. And it is very 
likely, that run-rates will change at the end of life cycle.

Regards,
	Andreas
-- 

--
Andreas Schachtner

afs Holding GmbH
communication technologies & solutions
http://afs-com.de/

Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner
HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090825/9a167e82/attachment.sig>