[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 15, 2014 at 11:16:24AM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
> There arent at this moment (or I dont know them) any incentives to 
> deploy IPv6... If nobody does, nobody will do.

Repeating the claim that "nobody deploys IPv6" - which is quite obviously
not true, and everybody can see that - is not really strengthening any
argument based on that.

There are quite some incentives to deploy IPv6, like "IPv4 run-out" and
"cost of CGN, cost of IPv4 deployment, poor quality of web services to
IPv4-behind-CGN users, etc."

Even our policy has (indirect) incentives to deploy IPv6 - getting IPv6
address blocks is so much easier than it ever was for IPv4 addresses...

[..]
> 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)

But that's basically back to "window dressing" - acquiring an IPv6 network
is trivial, but if someone does not want to deploy IPv6, it will not make
him.

[..]
> > 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.

If we have a clause in the policy that is there to achieve something, but
doesn't do so, and the policy without the clause is easier to understand
and implement, this is definitely preferred.

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/20141015/e7329f03/attachment.sig>