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

Gert Doering wrote:
> 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).

That sounds like an offer to write the document.

Nick