[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)

Hi Stefan,

> Let me explain that with a simple case: Our company is a LIR for just a few month now; the main reason why we signed up on April this year was that we started to run out of IP addresses and wanted to get that /22 IPv4 allocation (we already had a /24). And for us the only reason to deploy IPv6 was that we had to request an allocation in the first place.
> 
> [...]
> 
> From my point of view, the removal of the IPv6 requirement would slow down the process of deploying IPv6; the more everyone is talking about IPv6 to customers as well as to other providers (especially upstream providers) the more public awareness of IPv6 increases and the more selling and buying IPv6 services goes without saying - and that's what we need.

I fully agree that there is need for public awareness for IPv6 deployment. However, I think there are better ways for causing awareness and get people talking about IPv6 etc than doing this in address policy.

I would suggest that we ask the RIPE NCC to increase their outreach to LIRs that don't have any IPv6 address space, explain the need for IPv6 deployment, promote the trainings provided by the RIPE NCC etc. Just because a RIPE policy doesn't require an LIR to request IPv6 space anymore doesn't mean that the RIPE NCC cannot promote IPv6, especially if we as a community ask them to.

Cheers,
Sander