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

Adrian Pitulac wrote:
> I think this has not been expressed directly, but IPv6 implementation
> obligations in this policy might be the reason why it could be MUCH
> better than existing policy who offers the opportunities for future
> entrants but does not have a long term solution for the real problem
> (IPv4 exhaustion).

If you think ipv6 implementation obligations are a good idea, then
please feel free to put forward a separate policy to introduce them, but
don't confuse them with changing the last /8 allocation policies because
they are fundamentally different things.

Incidentally, the reason Randy Bush wrote this earlier this morning:

> 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.

... was because he - and many other people - watched for several years
as top-down policy obligations to implement OSI protocols as
communication standards failed utterly and beyond hope.  They failed
because top-down decrees don't work.

As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its
members how to run their networks.

Nick