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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Mon Jul 6 21:28:48 CEST 2009
Marco, On Jul 6, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > Being more efficient is only the start. In the end is 7 billion > people vs less then 4 billion addresses. Two answers: - Number of people is mostly irrelevant. How many addresses does someone who doesn't have electricity or a telephone need? - An IPv4 market is likely a temporary situation until IPv6 is deployed. > Rhere simply ain't a way around it, face it and deploy IPv6 or > somewhere somebody will pay these prices (or more likely start a war). Deploying IPv6 is not free. Which costs less, buying IPv4 address space (black market or no) or deploying IPv6? Which brings more benefit given the state of the IPv6 Internet? Regards, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]