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

Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> 
>>Then lets change the text of the policy for recieving the last /22.
>>
>>Point 5.1, rule 4:
>>
>>From:
>>Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
>>
>>To:
>>Allocations will only be made to LIRs if the have already received and IPv6 PI or PA from another LIR, RIPE NCC or other RIR.
> 
> 
> That is still something that won't push real deployment, only administrative work...

Indeed. Just look at Section D of the impact anlysis, ref. the company structure
comment(s).

In general I can live with the current proposal, but I am worried about the formal
requirement of "in a Registry mirrored by the RIPE NCC", because it would invalidate
the policy in case something happens to the mirroring. But be it, in the interest of
PI holders which already *have* implemented IPv6...

In general, I would be much more in favour of a version of the proposal which removes
the IPV6 holdership or usage *completely*. For all the reasons that have been pointed
out already by others. (Thanks for that!).

Wilfried

> 
> A different idea: if we want people requesting IPv4 space to be aware of IPv6 then why not just make it a requirement that the requester declares that they are aware that IPv4 is a scarce and limited resource and that for further scalability of the internet IPv6 deployment is required. It would probably have the same impact on real IPv6 deployment without any window dressing.
> 
> And it would avoid requiring people to request resources that they have no intention of using at that point in time. IPv6 resources are easy to get: when they decide to deploy IPv6 it is easy for them to get the necessary resources at that point. And they will probably also know better what to request. I wonder how many LIRs have just requested an IPv6 /32 without thinking because they only needed to go through the motions to get an IPv4 /22.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 
>