<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi, <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.12.2014 um 16:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:E1XyMaU-0002G4-12@puppy.ripe.net" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">- Removal of the IPv6 requirement to receive Pv4 addresses from the RIPE NCC - Related wording adjustments in the title, summary and rationale of the proposal </pre> </blockquote> I do not agree with this proposal. Let me explain that with a simple case: Our company is a LIR for just a few month now; the main reason why we signed up on April this year was that we started to run out of IP addresses and wanted to get that /22 IPv4 allocation (we already had a /24). And for us the only reason to deploy IPv6 was that we had to request an allocation in the first place. In our case we are a software company and we provide hosting services only for our existing customers and for our own software; therefore, the additional /22 IPv4 allocation that we received is suitable to expand our business and still have enough IPv4 address space for a long time. So, actually, we don't need IPv6 yet; and the chances are quite high that if we did not had to request the IPv6 allocation we would still be living happily with IPv4 only. Everyone who decided to deploy IPv6 will automatically inform others. A lot of our customers didn't even know that IPv6 exists; so they need other companies to inform them why they need it and why they should be concerned about it. Additionally we noticed that selling IPv6 is not even for our upstream providers a common process. They are capable of providing IPv6 and generally it works quite fine; however, there is a slight difference between anyone who's keen to sell his company's services and anyone who's fine with selling services if the customer is willing to pay for it. And from my experience the first one applies to IPv4 and the second one to IPv6. There are about 1000 new LIRs per year; if only this new LIRs would have to request an IPv6 allocation I believe that a lot of them would want to have this IPv6 allocation set up an running even if it's only because they've received it (as it was the case for our company). And the same applies to any existing LIR requesting their last /22. From my point of view, the removal of the IPv6 requirement would slow down the process of deploying IPv6; the more everyone is talking about IPv6 to customers as well as to other providers (especially upstream providers) the more public awareness of IPv6 increases and the more selling and buying IPv6 services goes without saying - and that's what we need. Kind Regards, Stefan Schiele </body> </html>