[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Wed Apr 20 23:27:27 CEST 2016
Hi, On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 16:55, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > Why not just check for AAAA record for their main site and mention of > IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or > something similar depending on the market ? > > It may put enough pressure for them to actually roll it out. Let's not put our marketing departments in the loop. Some of them get scared (for nothing). > I don't support this proposal in it's current state though. It won't > help IPv6 rollout as it is, it can actually make it worse because some > LIRs will be able to postpone it even more. But if combined with > additional incentives...it might just work. Some tiny bit of (free) IPv4 is the incentive. I can't find better. Just need to make sure the condition is well-written. > Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and > probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be > great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ? That was part of the initial idea (see https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf )
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]