Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:40:03PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The proposal as it stands is window dressing because it requires only tickbox-style compliance. This is completely pointless. Organisations will either deploy ipv6 or they won't, and this decision will be made on business merit rather than because a RIPE NCC IPRA delayed a /22 allocation because of a policy violation.
Indeed, but that's what we have in the policy right *now* :-) So maybe the question to the group should be: - abandon the IPv6 requirement completely, and "who asks for their last /22 gets it, done" or - come to some agreement about what sort of IPv6 window dressing should be there, maybe only to serve as an awareness thing. - *iff* that, what sort of IPv6 space should qualify? Onlookers might have noticed that this proposal should have ended it's current phase (discussion) quite a while ago, was extended, and should have ended now again - but we'll extend the discussion phase again, to clarify this point. Then the proposers have a clear direction in which way to re-word their proposal for the next discussion phase - the current text certainly hasn't reached consensus yet. So, working group, please let us know what you think. 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