[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2

On 15/09/2009 18:26, Per Heldal wrote:
> In the past we've dismissed suggestions to link v4 allocations to
> subjective requirements such as "must prove intention to deploy v6".
> During the runout the situation changes.

yep, you've put your finger on the button.  It's not RIPE's position to sit 
on an ivory tower, wagging its finger at people and saying that they can 
only have more ipv4 addresses if they agree to swallow some ipv6 medicine.

If ipv4 end-users want to move to ipv6, don't get in their way.  And if 
they want to stick with ipv4 in an ipv4 starved world, let them do so.  It 
will hurt them and they will realise themselves that ipv6 offers a better 
long-term solution.  Runout will concentrate peoples' minds wonderfully 
about what is or isn't the best solution for their businesses.

Any attempt to force ipv6 uptake by dangling tiny quantities of ipv4 
addresses in front of people will fail horribly and will cause pointless 
anger and great resentment.

Nick