This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Thu Aug 27 15:22:17 CEST 2009
>> I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have >> a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only >> world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think >> they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of >> the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this >> might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. > > Fair enough. However this could be solved by the market if > some ISPs offer v4-to-v6 gateway services to customers whose > networks are pure v6. That would mean that a new ISP can only enter the market when buying a service from an existing ISP. I don't know if this would be seen as anti-competitive, but I suspect it will. Especially because we could make policy that prevents (well, significantly postpones) that situation. - Sander PS: I make the assumption here that not everything will be reachable over native IPv6 when the new company wants to start. I think this is a reasonable assumption for the first years at least.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]