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

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:42:06PM +0100, Stefan Schiele wrote:
> Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC wrote on 11 December 2014:
> > The RIPE NCC has started allocating /22s from the last /8 on 14 
> > September 2012. Since then 4190 IPv6 allocations have been made, out 
> > of which 1160 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
> >
> > If we take into consideration the total number of IPv6 allocations 
> > made by the RIPE NCC, 8398 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of 
> > which 4098 are currently visible in the BGP routing tables.
> 
> That means that more than 27% of those IPv6 allocations are really used; 
> and that's a quite impressive figure. And I think we can conclude that 
> the current policy does have a positive effect on IPv6 deployment. In 
> comparison about 49% of all IPv6 allocations are visible in the BGP 
> routing table; and that makes that 27% even more impressive.

The nice things about numbers is that you can interpret them any way
you like.

For me, these numbers tell me: LIRs that have not been *forced* to take
a /32 are *more likely* to actually announce it in BGP than those that
had to take it as "mandatory" (nearly 50% of all IPv6 allocations in
total are in BGP, but only 27% of those after September 2012).

You assume that LIRs will only ask for IPv6 because they have to - but
that is just wrong.  All the "pre /22" LIRs that have IPv6 asked for it
because they *wanted* IPv6.

[Before anyone chimes in: nobody understands why allocations do not
show up in BGP, or why it takes as long as it does for them to show up,
and "show up in BGP" is also not a useful metric for "has deployed IPv6
on more than a single router"]

[..]
> I think that forcing anyone who wants to get address space from the last 
> IPv4 to get an IPv6 allocation first won't do any harm to anyone; 

The current policy *does* cause harm for those that have already deployed
IPv6 but have done so with PI space - because forcing them to take a PA
allocation will also force them to return their PI space and renumber all
their existing IPv6 deployment.  This is what got the whole ball rolling.

You might want to enlighten yourself by reading up the discussion on
possible alternative wordings to the policy, and why we ended up with
removing the criteria altogether.

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/20150122/7568316a/attachment.sig>