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.