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

Why not just check for AAAA record for their main site and mention of 
IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or 
something similar depending on the market ?

It may put enough pressure for them to actually roll it out.

I don't support this proposal in it's current state though. It won't 
help IPv6 rollout as it is, it can actually make it worse because some 
LIRs will be able to postpone it even more. But if combined with 
additional incentives...it might just work.

Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and 
probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be 
great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ?

On 18.04.2016 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.
>