On 13.02.2016, at 16:28, Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com> wrote:
First off; I'm glad someone is trying to keep the conversation on track rather than allowing it to degrade further into the politics of IPv4 allocation restrictions (and it is pure politics at this stage).
As Paul points out the goal of this discussion is to reduce abuse of an extant policy, not a new one, and since the goal of said extant policy is to encourage IPv6 adoption I would agree with applying all of the below. But if we have to choose only one option then I'd vote for option 5 as it looks the most effective.
+1 here, as I did elaborate a bit on the ideas, the main reason is, I see LIRs around me already talking about opening another LIR first, before asking me if I’m doing the same or this new v6 thing. I doubt the higher fees would suffice, as they are passed on to the customer, and only help large incumbent telcos, sitting on a better pile of unused or unoptimized ip space. Matthias
-Tim
On 12/02/16 23:13, Paul Civati wrote:
...
5. New LIR opens and is issued with IPv6 space immediately, then and only once that IPv6 space is up and visible in routing tables can you apply for your IPv4 space for that LIR. If you are not ready to run IPv6 at LIR opening, will you ever be?