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.