Hi, I support, provided that the RIPE NCC will inform the applicants about IPv6.
Regards, George On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Martin Pels <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:42:16 +0100 > Stefan Schiele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > The proposal does not preclude the RIPE NCC from mentioning to LIRs who > request > their last /22 that there is such a thing as IPv6 and that an LIR can get > an > IPv6 allocation with one click if they want it. This can be done as part > of the > increased outreach that the impact analysis talks about. > > Kind regards, > Martin > >
