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

Hi,

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:05:16AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> > Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter?
> > Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes?
> 
> [x] all of the above, and more.
> 
> This question isn't relevant as it seems - lots of organisations have
> their needs and the RIPE NCC cannot and should not be arbiter of whose
> need is greatest or should take precedence.

Right - *but* it might be an interesting idea to turn around this discussion,
away from haggling about the last scraps, into being able to give more 
useful guidance to LIRs.

Like,

  - if you need to connect end-users, best practice is dual-stack with
    native IPv6 and CGNAT IPv4 (it stinks, but gets the job done while
    content is not IPv6 capable everyhwere)

  - if you run a data-center, run ipv6-only on the inside, and add 
    Tore-style NAT46 to give each service a single public IPv4 address
    (insert pointer to RFC...)

etc.

While not truly *APWG* relevant, we could at least find out where the
highest pain is, and then throw the ball over to the IPv6 WG to provide 
solutions :-)  (totally IETF style).

Gert
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160521/5db1ed3c/attachment.sig>