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

On 22.04.2016 11:05, Randy Bush wrote:
> believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet
> another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures.  sure, give
> them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it.  but will they convert
> their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6?  that
> decision is driven by very different business cases.
>
> the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie
> bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long
> while.
>
> randy
>
Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but 
there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial 
IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible 
to check if they even done anything in that time.

I have no illusions, giving additional allocations is basically a small 
financial incentive that will only be worth it for small players. It has 
little value as of original proposal, which I oppose (no strings 
attached, just get your space and prolong your IPv4 existence). But it 
might be used to push some of smaller LIRs to IPv6 if we add additional 
requirements.

5-stars RIPEness with even higher thresholds + AAAA on main site + IPv6 
as part of usual services to customers ? It will be hard to achieve 
without actual rollout, and additional allocations to LIRs will be 
either small in number or useful.