Hi Michael, michael.dillon@bt.com said the following on 16/10/08 01:42:
I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of deploying IPv6?
It's not clear to me what an organisation can do with a small amount of IPv4 address space at the stage when this policy would come into play. I think anyone who wants their business to carry on growing beyond the run-out of the IANA IPv4 pool will already have IPv6 on their radar. I suppose they could do NAT upon NAT upon NAT, but that doesn't sound like a viable option to me. Hence opting for the softer option of simply sharing out the remaining IPv4 /8 as per the proposal.
It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement about this being a quota or rationing system.
Isn't it self evident? (LIR will only get the RIPE NCC minimum allocation in force at the time the allocation is requested.) philip --