Adrian Pitulac wrote: > I think this has not been expressed directly, but IPv6 implementation > obligations in this policy might be the reason why it could be MUCH > better than existing policy who offers the opportunities for future > entrants but does not have a long term solution for the real problem > (IPv4 exhaustion).
If you think ipv6 implementation obligations are a good idea, then please feel free to put forward a separate policy to introduce them, but don't confuse them with changing the last /8 allocation policies because they are fundamentally different things. Incidentally, the reason Randy Bush wrote this earlier this morning: > 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. ... was because he - and many other people - watched for several years as top-down policy obligations to implement OSI protocols as communication standards failed utterly and beyond hope. They failed because top-down decrees don't work. As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its members how to run their networks. Nick
