[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 09:55:31AM +0200, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> 
> 1.) what sort of restriction are we willing to put on address space? How
> and where, and in what direction can we think of restriction? On where
> it be used? On how it can be used, and what type of restriction?
> You have to publish IPv6 for any services/things using this address
> space?
> 

As long as there is space available on the IPv4 market, there is no need to
change the "no more than one /22 per LIR" rule. Keep the remaining RIR pool for
new entrants.
Once the market is dry, we can relax the rule.

Speaking of IPv6, I can't see what more we can do. We provide address without
justification, we provide tools, documentation and training for free. Many of
us, as a community, are ready to help people not confident to kickstart.
When you ask why IPv6 is not deployed :
- no need : then you'll pay your need for IPv4 at the market price
- not enough information or support : if you need help, the community can help.
- no support from transit provider or equipement vendor : unfortunately, it
  will be hard for RIPE to bring willing IPv6 provider in your area or pay for
  your gear if you can't afford the right provider.