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