On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 09:19, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 15:52, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
The only true soft-landing solution is to tie IPv6 deployment directly to IPv4 allocation. Organizations which are not deploying IPv6 along with IPv4 in their networks are not efficiently utilizing their IPv4 addresses and should not be allowed to get more.
Quoth the proposal:
d) Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
Verifying actual deployment in an end-user-accessible form would be a non-trivial task.
True, but we have found ways of gauging utilization of IPv4 addresses without too much effort. Their are some fairly low-touch requirements that could be applied here for IPv6 addresses as well. Such as; entry's in WHOIS, network diagrams/plans, subnetting plans, an announcement in the BGP table, etc.
Richard
PS: Personally, I would not mind if no single IPv4 was made any more without people requesting IPv6, as well. But there's not enough time left to get that through and the problem will solve itself, anyway.
It's very possible that we are too late to make an appreciable difference to standard allocations, agreed. Hopefully this does solve itself but it may be worth considering such a requirement WRT not only standard allocations but also post-depletion transfers (i.e. a change to section 5.3 would effect transfers under section 5.5). $0.02 ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org