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

Hi,

Sorry for late answer as Im really busy here :)

El 13/10/2014 19:43, Gert Doering escribió:
>   - who will be requesting that /22?  Will it make a difference in the
>     big picture if they deploy IPv6 "soonish" or not?

Only 1 wont make the difference in the big picture. Thousands of them 
will do.

>   - will it make a difference if we force them to provide some sort of
>     "look I have IPv6!" dance?  (We had this discussion every now and then
>     in the last years, including "give every LIR a /32 right away!" and
>     the end consensus was along the lines of "if they want to deploy, it
>     is easy enough to get space, so forcing an IPv6 prefix on them won't
>     make a difference")  Deploying IPv6 is more than "setup a tunnel
>     somewhere and anounce your prefix", so we should consider whether the
>     incentives we give are effective, or just theater.

There arent at this moment (or I dont know them) any incentives to 
deploy IPv6... If nobody does, nobody will do.

>   - who will benefit, and who will be hurt by such a requirement?  Right now
>     we have a policy which is actually hurting people that already *have*
>     deployed IPv6, just not the right type of addresses...  (because they
>     have to get their own PA and renumber out of the PI they have already
>     deployed).  *This* is certainly not a useful incentive.

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. (Please, dont 
just read literally as my english is not very good. Try to read what I 
want to transmit)

> I officially do not have an opinion here, but I hope I'm asking the right
> questions to reach some useful policy at the end :-)  (but indeed, I am
> known to be in favour of fairly simple and easy to implement policies)

We should not make policy only considering the simplicity and ease of 
implementation. Of course, if we have 2 options for a policy change 
saying the same but with different implementations, we should use the 
simple and easy one.

Cheers,

-- 
Daniel Baeza