On 18/04/16 18:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get
another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small
entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing
investments also. They will start providing IPv6 services and this
way we'll see an objective accomplishment.
If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all
customers who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to
support this policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue
burden on RIPE to verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question
for them to qualify for another /22 after 18 months.
So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a
certain level.
Checkboxing 3 star IPv6 RIPEness is easy, unfortunately it has very
little to do with real actual widespread IPv6 deployment.
I'm for changing the policy as needed to make this sustainable and also
get real benefit (in terms of IPv6 implementation) from it.
This is what I proposed from the start in my interventions here.. Let's
discuss and see if we can find a way to gain benefit from this policy.
I'm sure that the policy proposers, will look carefully and take into
consideration any viable idea.
