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

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:40:03PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The proposal as it stands is window dressing because it requires only
> tickbox-style compliance.  This is completely pointless.  Organisations
> will either deploy ipv6 or they won't, and this decision will be made on
> business merit rather than because a RIPE NCC IPRA delayed a /22 allocation
> because of a policy violation.

Indeed, but that's what we have in the policy right *now* :-)

So maybe the question to the group should be:

 - abandon the IPv6 requirement completely, and "who asks for their last
   /22 gets it, done"

or

 - come to some agreement about what sort of IPv6 window dressing should
   be there, maybe only to serve as an awareness thing.  

   - *iff* that, what sort of IPv6 space should qualify?


Onlookers might have noticed that this proposal should have ended it's
current phase (discussion) quite a while ago, was extended, and should
have ended now again - but we'll extend the discussion phase again, to
clarify this point.  Then the proposers have a clear direction in which
way to re-word their proposal for the next discussion phase - the current
text certainly hasn't reached consensus yet.


So, working group, please let us know what you think.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141010/56ae3a1a/attachment.sig>