[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 09:19, Richard Hartmann
<richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 15:52, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The only true soft-landing solution is to tie IPv6 deployment directly
>> to IPv4 allocation. Organizations which are not deploying IPv6 along
>> with IPv4 in their networks are not efficiently utilizing their IPv4
>> addresses and should not be allowed to get more.
>
> Quoth the proposal:
>
> d) Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received
> an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
>
> Verifying actual deployment in an end-user-accessible form would
> be a non-trivial task.

True, but we have found ways of gauging utilization of IPv4 addresses
without too much effort. Their are some fairly low-touch requirements
that could be applied here for IPv6 addresses as well. Such as;
entry's in WHOIS, network diagrams/plans, subnetting plans, an
announcement in the BGP table, etc.

>
> Richard
>
> PS: Personally, I would not mind if no single IPv4 was made any
> more without people requesting IPv6, as well. But there's not
> enough time left to get that through and the problem will solve
> itself, anyway.

It's very possible that we are too late to make an appreciable
difference to standard allocations, agreed. Hopefully this does solve
itself but it may be worth considering such a requirement WRT not only
standard allocations but also post-depletion transfers (i.e. a change
to section 5.3 would effect transfers under section 5.5).

$0.02
~Chris


-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org