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

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 12:38, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
> 
> 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?".

At which point I prefer being in the situation of telling them "doing
this for years already. next."

> 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 ?

Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You
can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???)
Big guys are almost never the first (but can start really early) and
rarely among the last (even if they can wait a really long time).

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

At some point yes, that's something that should be done somehow.