Hi Dave,
> On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the > policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. > Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than > nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 > is that it's worse than useless. Sorry I missed your talk, sounds interesting. I wouldn't say this proposal is negative, I just haven't read anyone explain how having an *any* IPv6 requirement negatively impacts IPv6 internet growth. How could it be worse than useless? Would it deter or slow a company's IPv6 adoption? I don't see how. In fact the IPv6 requirement in the current policy actually got Stefan Schiele's organisation on their unplanned road to v6, just like I said having their own v6 block may spark the interest of an organisation that previously only thought about IPv4: > On 22 Jan 2015, at 17:42, "Stefan Schiele" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > The current policy actually had a positive effect on our company. The main > reason for us to sign up as an LIR was to get more IPv4 addresses; and since > we had to request an IPv6 allocation we wanted to have this set up and > running. If it had been possible to get that /22 without an IPv6 address > space we would probably still be using IPv4 only (the IPv4 address space we > currently have is large enough for our business for the foreseeable future). > > Since this policy had a positive effect on IPv6 awareness for us I simply > deduce that it should have a positive effect for some other companies as well. > On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 > assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, > because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because > they had to do so to get a /22. Don't get me wrong, good measurements are very valuable, but more valuable than increasing the actual number of IPv6 adoptions and usage? I think that should be the focus. > As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about > IPv6 to future applicants. Indeed the NCC is doing a very good job of promoting IPv6. However reality is many organisations live outside the RIPE bubble and just want a last IPv4 block. Giving them a free IPv6 allocation to go home and play with (immediately, or in time) kinda seems like a good thing to me. Kind regards, James Sent from my iPhone On 22 Jan 2015, at 18:12, "Dave Wilson" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello James, On 22/01/2015 12:38, Kennedy, James wrote: Wouldn't relaxing the text (as initially suggested) to require the LIR to have *any* form of IPv6, rather than removing it altogether, be more beneficial to general IPv6 adoption? I fear having no IPv6 requirement at all may encourage the LIR to look into alternatives, such as NAT or the transfer market. Honestly, I don't think it would, no. We'd get some anecdotes like we already have, but nothing systematic. This proposal looks harsh because all a proposal can do is changing the policy text and, taken on its own, that appears to be a negative change. Might as well do something, right? But "something is better than nothing" is just not effective; in fact the thrust of my talk at RIPE68 is that it's worse than useless. Here's one example for this particular case: the number of v6 assignments is not currently a useful measure of interest in IPv6, because it's polluted by assignments to people who only applied because they had to do so to get a /22. As Gert said, the RIPE NCC is asked to send very clear signals about IPv6 to future applicants. That's something that doesn't belong in the policy text, but is absolutely pertinent to this proposal, and my feeling is that it'll be an overall improvement. More importantly, it's something that can be worked on over time so that we do end up with a systematic improvement. (So to be clear: I support the policy as is in last call.) All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666
