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

Hello, 

Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? 
I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market. 

Of course the LIR's deployment decision will ultimately come down to QoS, scalability, revenue etc., but I don't see the harm in encouraging the LIR to get some IPv6. 
After all, it's really very easy to get an IPv6 allocation from the NCC and at no additional cost.. currently :)  

Receiving their own v6 block may spark an interest in LIRs that previously had no IPv6 plans. 

Regards, 
James 

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Schiele
Sent: 22 January 2015 12:39
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Comments on proposal 2014-04 (Remove the IPv6 Requirement for receiving address space)

Hi Gert,

I don't consider this argument as being addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out clear signals that IPv6 is important. There is a difference between being forced to request an IPv6 allocation to receive
IPv4 space from the final /8 and the RIPE NCC sending out some signals regarding IPv6.

 From my point of view, this argument hasn't been really addressed; some agreed with it and some didn't. If the majority agrees with this proposal that's fine for me; and I can live with that. However, as the one who brought up this argument a few weeks ago in the first place please allow me to tell you that I think it is not addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out some signals.

The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal.

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.

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