On 22.04.2016 11:05, Randy Bush wrote:
believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet
another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give
them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert
their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that
decision is driven by very different business cases.
the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie
bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long
while.
randy
Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but
there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial
IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible
to check if they even done anything in that time.
I have no illusions, giving additional allocations is basically a small
financial incentive that will only be worth it for small players. It has
little value as of original proposal, which I oppose (no strings
attached, just get your space and prolong your IPv4 existence). But it
might be used to push some of smaller LIRs to IPv6 if we add additional
requirements.
5-stars RIPEness with even higher thresholds + AAAA on main site + IPv6
as part of usual services to customers ? It will be hard to achieve
without actual rollout, and additional allocations to LIRs will be
either small in number or useful.
