On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 12:38, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > > They have to deal with that anyway sooner or later. Also it might become > an additional pressure, "our rivals have this strange thing called IPv6 > on their site, can we do it too?".
At which point I prefer being in the situation of telling them "doing this for years already. next." > There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost > always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if > not decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ? Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???) Big guys are almost never the first (but can start really early) and rarely among the last (even if they can wait a really long time). > >> Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and > >> probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be > >> great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ? > > > > That was part of the initial idea (see > > https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf ) > > Then I think it needs to be considered again, with or without additional > allocation. At some point yes, that's something that should be done somehow.
