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

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>
>
> New LIRs - holders of /22 - have all the incentives to deploy IPv6
> already (because they do not have enough IPv4 to number everything with
> public v4 addresses) - but how would such a policy incentivize a big
> content provider that has enough v4, is not growing in number of external
> visible services (= doesn't need more v4 addresses), and has no v6?
>
> These are the sore spots today: content and cloud providers - and neither
> are likely to fall under this policy.
>
>
Thank you, Gert, for this very concise summary of the major grief that
cannot and will not be solved, neither by 2015-05 nor by 2016-03.


-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160522/17dd381d/attachment.html>