Sorry for joining the discussion too late Gert, only caught my eye today :)
Regards, James > On 22 Jan 2015, at 23:01, "Kennedy, James" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >
