[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 new radical suggestions

Hi Aleksi,

a few comments inline:

On 07/05/14 04:24, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While we were formulating the proposal 2014-04, we came up with a 
> handful of other more radical alternatives too. We decided to leave 
> them out of the initial proposal text, because of their controversial 
> nature. We decided to instead present them to the discussion on the 
> mailing list, which I'm doing now:
>
> OTHER RIRS
>
> The current policy for final /8 IPv4 assignments requires that the 
> IPv6 address space is assigned by RIPE NCC. Assignments by other RIRs 
> aren't accepted. Proposal 2014-04 does not change this oversight.
and I agree that it should also be fixed. If you have IPv6 (no matter 
from where and which color it has) then you should be allowed to receive 
your /22.
>
> I can see one snag, if IPv6 assignments from other RIRs were accepted: 
> multi-national corporations would hoard "an automatic /22" from every 
> RIR slightly more easily than the current policy allows. In that case 
> I would also add policy text that would make sure that if the 
> applicant already has a final /8 IPv4 assignment from some other RIR, 
> they can't get one from RIPE.
>
that won't fly. other RIRs have different policies regarding their last 
/8 (APNIC's is the only one similar to RIPE's AFAIK). Some RIRs don't 
even have a /22 policy.
And if someone needs IPv4 in the RIPE Region, getting the /22 should not 
be limited to the last /8 policy from an other region. That would be 
plain wrong.
> PROMOTE IPv6 USAGE
>
> Gert Doering wrote:
>> Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs
>> to "do something with IPv6"...
>
> The something that the current policy encourages LIRs to do with IPv6:
>
>  * register a block and forget about it
>
> To really promote IPv6 adoption, why not require final /8 applicants 
> to demonstrate their IPv6 capability before being given the IPv4 
> address block? The simplest way I came up with would be to create a 
> service mailbox under an IPv6 only sub-domain (e.g. 
> hostmaster at v6only.ripe.net) and require that the applicants complete 
> some steps of their process with this mailbox.
>
> This would verify that the applicant has access to IPv6 capable:
>   * routing
>   * DNS resolvers
>   * authoritative DNS
>   * SMTP servers
>
> ... and is not afraid to use them!
>
> Well, of course the applicant could be using someone else's mail 
> system to complete those steps. I'm not sure if that matters.
if you really want to go on that path, you may want to say that the LIRs 
which can receive their last /22 must have at least 4 IPv6 RIPEness 
stars. But I really think a lot of people will oppose to such an idea.

cheers,
elvis

-- 
<http://v4escrow.net> 	


  Elvis Daniel Velea


    Chief Business Analyst

Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain 
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140507/c9119864/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140507/c9119864/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11971 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140507/c9119864/attachment-0001.png>