Hi, On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:38:39PM +0100, Stefan Schiele wrote:
I don't consider this argument as being addressed by simply asking the RIPE NCC to send out clear signals that IPv6 is important. There is a difference between being forced to request an IPv6 allocation to receive IPv4 space from the final /8 and the RIPE NCC sending out some signals regarding IPv6.
It is, but I have to make a decision how to go ahead if many members of the community support the proposal, while a single argument is brought in opposition - "stop the proposal" (which would mean "nothing gets anywhere, ever") or "understand the concerns and find a way that will at least bring some compromise". [..]
The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal.
It will not - people who want the last /22 for speculation can have it today perfectly fine. Forcing them to take a (free) /32 with it will not make them more conservative - it sends a message ("hey! think of IPv6!") and we can convey that message in other ways, too.
By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, either.
This is handwaving based on assumptions... Anyway, there is a group working on a proposal to prevent exactly this: speculation with the last /22 allocations ("open LIR, grab /22, sell it, close LIR, open new LIR, ..."). The policy proposal discussed here has really no influence on people that want to speculate - nothing stops them form accepting the free /32 together with the /22, sell the /22, return the /32, and close the LIR... 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