[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

Dear Daniel, All,


On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Daniel Suchy wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 2/7/19 1:17 PM, Servereasy via address-policy-wg wrote:
>> I oppose this proposal, unless at least RIPE NCC will charge members
>> based on how much IPv4 space they have. I find that this will be the
>> only way to really boost IPv6 adoption.
>
> this is problem maily due to law and related taxes. Such diversification
> was here and this changed few years back.

Exactly!

And apart from that, RIPE NCC also distributes other numbering resources 
apart from IPv4 addresses, and has a broader set of services. :-)


> I think only one reason, which will really boost IPv6 adoption is real
> exhaustion of IPv4 pool within our (RIPE) region.

Please, that is leading nowhere.

I also would like to see a stronger IPv6 adoption, and reach the point 
where IPv6 packets become dominant (i.e. >50%) and at a later stage reach 
a point where IPv4 routers/services/everything could be disconnected 
because they weren't useful anymore.

Imho, it doesn't help to repeat to exhaustion that IPv4 is legacy. That's 
not the way people are doing IPv4-only today will feel they *need* to 
deploy IPv6.

Please let us focus on reality:
IPv6 adoption depends on a multitude of scenarios.
For ORGs that already have their own fair share of IPv4 addresses 
(suitable for their needs) IPv6 will always be "low priority".
For those ORGs, IPv4 exhaustion can be *irrelevant* -- it doesn't affect 
*them*, only 3rd parties are impacted.
Their IPv4 addresses will still be usable (and useful).


> 2019-02 proposal is just delay this (and allowing more newcomers to
> start their bussiness), nothing else.

No. That's completely not the idea.

The core purpose of 2019-02 is to allow (more) newcomers to access a tiny 
bit of IPv4 address space so their (hopefully IPv6-enabled) infrastructure 
will have path to the IPv4-only world (without going to the market).

I would happilly include a "you have prove the NCC you have deployed 
IPv6"-type clause on this proposal's v2.0, but i'm 99,9% sure that would 
be a problem for a lot of people. :-(

This way, if newcomers just become a LIR and grab a /24, they can become 
independent (routing policy-wise, etc...) from their upstream(s) -- and i 
openly expect their engagement/exposure with the NCC will improve their 
knowledge about IPv6, and their future willingness to deploy it. ;-)

I hope this helps you understand my motivation to have kickstarted this 
2019-02 work jointly with Sander.


Best Regards,
Carlos



> - Daniel
>