Hi, On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:29:37AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:
every policy that makes IPv6 adoption a must can help slow down IPv4 allocation rate and in the meanwhile will even lower IPv4 maket value that's why there is the so called "no solution" sorry for brevity, family time....
The problem with that is: by imposing "YOU MUST DO IPv6!" on requestors that only have a /22 yet (assuming that we could find a meaningful way to check IPv6 deployment that cannot be cheated) - you're not going to solve the thing that people are complaining about in this thread: "old LIRs that have enough IPv4 space and are not deploying IPv6!" New LIRs - holders of /22 - have all the incentives to deploy IPv6 already (because they do not have enough IPv4 to number everything with public v4 addresses) - but how would such a policy incentivize a big content provider that has enough v4, is not growing in number of external visible services (= doesn't need more v4 addresses), and has no v6? These are the sore spots today: content and cloud providers - and neither are likely to fall under this policy. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279