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

On 18/04/16 18:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 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.
>

I'm for changing the policy as needed to make this sustainable and also 
get real benefit (in terms of IPv6 implementation) from it.

This is what I proposed from the start in my interventions here.. Let's 
discuss and see if we can find a way to gain benefit from this policy.

I'm sure that the policy proposers, will look carefully and take into 
consideration any viable idea.