Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > >>Then lets change the text of the policy for recieving the last /22. >> >>Point 5.1, rule 4: >> >>From: >>Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 >>allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. >> >>To: >>Allocations will only be made to LIRs if the have already received and IPv6 >>PI or PA from another LIR, RIPE NCC or other RIR. > > > That is still something that won't push real deployment, only administrative > work...
Indeed. Just look at Section D of the impact anlysis, ref. the company structure comment(s). In general I can live with the current proposal, but I am worried about the formal requirement of "in a Registry mirrored by the RIPE NCC", because it would invalidate the policy in case something happens to the mirroring. But be it, in the interest of PI holders which already *have* implemented IPv6... In general, I would be much more in favour of a version of the proposal which removes the IPV6 holdership or usage *completely*. For all the reasons that have been pointed out already by others. (Thanks for that!). Wilfried > > A different idea: if we want people requesting IPv4 space to be aware of IPv6 > then why not just make it a requirement that the requester declares that they > are aware that IPv4 is a scarce and limited resource and that for further > scalability of the internet IPv6 deployment is required. It would probably > have the same impact on real IPv6 deployment without any window dressing. > > And it would avoid requiring people to request resources that they have no > intention of using at that point in time. IPv6 resources are easy to get: > when they decide to deploy IPv6 it is easy for them to get the necessary > resources at that point. And they will probably also know better what to > request. I wonder how many LIRs have just requested an IPv6 /32 without > thinking because they only needed to go through the motions to get an IPv4 > /22. > > Cheers, > Sander > >
