[address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)

Hi Stefan,

On 22/01/15 12:38, Stefan Schiele wrote:

[...]
> The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; 
> and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal.
I do not think there will be any difference in how much IPv4 will be 
requested/allocated from the last /8 if the policy changes. I could 
easily just use the LIR Portal 3-click request and get an IPv6 
allocation if it's one of the steps in requesting the IPv4 allocation. 
It does not mean that I will actually use it or do anything with it. 
It's just a step in the process of me getting the /22 I wanted.
>
> By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer 
> market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address 
> space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, 
> either.
>
I doubt it will have any effect. The RIPE NCC still has more than a /8 
in /22s (18.55 mil IP addresses) [1] and can allocate the /22s for at 
least 5-10 years (my personal opinion is that it will never stop 
allocating the /22s).

Regards,
Elvis

[1] 
https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph

> Kind Regards,
>
> Stefan Schiele
>
> Am 22.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Gert Doering:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote:
>>> Our comment on thIs proposal is:
>>> We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement 
>>> for Receiving Space from the Final /8.
>>> This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the 
>>> process of using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 
>>> space migration is becoming increasingly important.
>>> By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong 
>>> signals to the industry about ipv6 migration.
>> This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed
>> (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6
>> encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general
>> IPv6 outreach).
>>
>> Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have
>> not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle
>> hat has been overlooked.
>>
>> As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is 
>> sufficiently
>> strong support.
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>          -- APWG chair
>
>


-- 
<http://v4escrow.net> 	


  Elvis Daniel Velea


    Chief Executive Officer

Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 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/20150122/3ed7b7a5/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/20150122/3ed7b7a5/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/20150122/3ed7b7a5/attachment-0001.png>