[AfriNIC-rpd] Pushing IPv6

[Mark Elkins]

I hear you - I'd argue that

...Its been done in another area successfully.

The second rule (no more IPv4 if you have not demonstrated use of
previous v6) would be a persuasion to have existing v6 deployed. We do
have something that says you have six or so months - this thought may be
a stronger persuasion.

Also think that if policies remain simple (one step at a time) they
should be more lightly to go through.

On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 20:03 +0300, Douglas Onyango wrote:
> Mark,
> If i get you right, then this policy would be:-
> 1. Requiring Members applying for v4 to apply for and be
> allocated/assigned v6 blocks as well
> 2. Requiring members to (somehow) demonstrate usage of their v6 blocks.
> 
> Borrowing from my experience authoring the IPv4 Softlanding Policy,
> where similar ideas were advanced, i would say this would be
> "dictating to Members how to run their networks..." - To use the exact
> words used at the time.
> 
> Now, unless the community's take on this has changed, I remember these
> points bringing alot of contention to the said Policy with the only
> option being for us to remove the whole tying v4
> allocation/assignment/usage to v6 (or the reverse) out of the Policy.
> 
> So going  by the Community's feel at the time (which i doubt has
> changed much), i wouldn't say this makes sense....But maybe i am wrong
> on the community's perspective.
> 
> Regards,

-- 
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - (South) Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4007 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20111124/4ac2e37e/attachment.bin>