[rpd] opposition to Review Policy

[Daniel Yakmut]

The point that a quick exhaustion or depletion of IPv4 is our hope and
desire, so that network operators or managers, can quickly adopt IPv6.

Rather what we see is a bunch of people proposing and pushing for propsals
such as the Review Policy so that IPv4 can be kept in a granary and fetch
when it is 'needed'.  This is a retrogressive mentality, which shouldn't be
encouraged by a last call.

The quick termination of this inhibiting policy proposal, is critical and
ugent. The authors should take up drafting other policy proposals as we saw
several of these needs at Hammanet. Let them abandon this unproductive
pursued of ressurecting a dead horse.

Cheers
Daniel

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:

> I would oppose any such clause – because there is absolutely zero
> indication that a clause like this has any effect anywhere in the world.
>
>
>
> Fact is – it is not the job of an RIR to tell people how to run their
> networks – it is the RIR’s job to evaluate if someone has a need for v4
> addresses and supply them if they do.  You cannot force people to
> transition to IPv6 – and if a network chooses not to do so for whatever
> reason – that is their choice, and in the end they will be penalized for
> it.
>
>
>
> For years people looked for the proverbial silver bullet that will move
> people towards IPv6 – and never found it – that is because IPv6 is yet
> another part of the Internet – it is not something that can be
> commercialized – it is not something to be sold – it is there because such
> like BGP, IS-IS, OSPF, IPv4, whatever else – we need it – it forms an
> underlying part of the infrastructure.
>
>
>
> The only real driver towards IPv6 will be the depletion of and/or scarcity
> and expense associated with IPv4 – it will not be through coercive policies
> that are outside of the mandate of an RIR
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ish Sookun <ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu>
> *Organization: *La Sentinelle Ltd
> *Date: *Sunday, 2 December 2018 at 17:05
> *To: *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, "rpd at afrinic.net"
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Inter-RIR Resource
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
> On 11/27/18 9:31 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> > Also agree. There is an urgent need for a transition plan, and that
> includes carefully considering an IPv6 addressing plan, among other things.
> No need to stockpile IPv6, BUT you need to have some to make the
> transition, even if you plan for an IPv6-only network.
>
> Could this be addressed in a policy such as Soft-Landing, like making
> having an IPv6 transition plan as one of the qualifying criteria for
> more IPv4 resources?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ish Sookun
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20181202/482bef79/attachment.html>