[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote:

> Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another 
> IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities 
> to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. 
> They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an 
> objective accomplishment.

If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all customers 
who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to support this 
policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue burden on RIPE to 
verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question for them to qualify for 
another /22 after 18 months.

> So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a 
> certain level.

Checkboxing 3 star IPv6 RIPEness is easy, unfortunately it has very little 
to do with real actual widespread IPv6 deployment.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se