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

Hi Stefan,

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:42:16 +0100
Stefan Schiele <st at sct.de> wrote:

> There are about 1000 new LIRs per year; if only this new LIRs would have 
> to request an IPv6 allocation I believe that a lot of them would want to 
> have this IPv6 allocation set up an running even if it's only because 
> they've received it (as it was the case for our company). And the same 
> applies to any existing LIR requesting their last /22.
> 
>  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.

The proposal does not preclude the RIPE NCC from mentioning to LIRs who request
their last /22 that there is such a thing as IPv6 and that an LIR can get an
IPv6 allocation with one click if they want it. This can be done as part of the
increased outreach that the impact analysis talks about.

Kind regards,
Martin