[AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:

> After listening at AfriNIC-15 and what happens in LACNIC - would it make
> sense to propose a policy that...
> 
> Purpose - to promote IPv6
> 
> In order for a resource member to get any new IPv4 resource - and they
> have no IPv6 resource - they must apply for an IPv6 resource as well.
> 
Personally I don't think so. All it does is push people to request resources
which they can then leave on the shelf. We want to drive actual IPv6
deployment, not merely address consumption.

In fact, I would say that driving address consumption without deployment
is a net lose for the community.

> If the resource member asks for any new IPv4 resource - and they have
> any IPv6 resources older than four months of age - then the resource
> member must show that any of their existing IPv6 resources are in use
> either visible in the Routing Tables or the IPv6 resource must be
> provably in use (reachable via another Member), which would exclude
> anything in a testing environment.
> 

This takes a step towards pushing deployment, but, in fact, it's pretty
easy to anchor a route at one of your edges and not actually deploy
anything behind it.

I think it's better to work on more meaningful deployment through outreach
and encouragement rather than through policy. Policy initiatives tend to
drive resistance and people tend to do the bare minimum necessary to
work through or around the policy rather than look for ways to go beyond
what the policy requires.

Better would be to provide hall-of-fame style incentives for people to
go as far as they can in IPv6 deployment. Something like the RIPEness
program at RIPE NCC.

Owen