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

On 21.04.2016 00:27, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 16:55, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Let's not put our marketing departments in the loop. Some of them get
> scared (for nothing).

They have to deal with that anyway sooner or later. Also it might become 
an additional pressure, "our rivals have this strange thing called IPv6 
on their site, can we do it too?".

>> 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.
>
> Some tiny bit of (free) IPv4 is the incentive. I can't find better. Just
> need to make sure the condition is well-written.

There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost 
always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if 
not decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ?



>
>> 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 ?
>
> That was part of the initial idea (see
> https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf )
>
Thanks ! Apparently I missed that.

Then I think it needs to be considered again, with or without additional 
allocation.