[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Sun May 22 11:33:54 CEST 2016
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > Thank you, Gert, for this very concise summary of the major grief that cannot and will not be solved, neither by 2015-05 nor by 2016-03. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160522/17dd381d/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]