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

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, at 17:56, 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.

If it can get more support, why not ?
5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't
bother me)
We have already discussed this with NCC staff, things are complex, but
any new idea is welcome.