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] RE: The price of address space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Fri Jul 24 12:18:02 CEST 2009
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:02:14PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Gert Doering wrote: > > > >> While I do quite enjoy the occasional IPv6/IPv4 advocacy discussion, > >> I would indeed prefer to keep *this* list a bit more focused on > >> *address policy related* topics: > > > >> and we need > >> policies for those that want some of the remaining IPv4 numbers. > > > > The problem is that IPv4 address policy is affected a *LOT* by > > an answer to the following question: > > > > When IPv6 will be really deployed? > > Depends on what you mean with that :) amen. Ohta-san, please come visit. You will find that unless your network devices are capabile of IPv6 transport, you will have no connectivity. with the exception of the IVI box and the DNS server, nothing has an IPv4 address. the other 40+ devices onnet are all runing native IPv6. I would say that this is emperical evidence of IPv6 deployment. Would you disagree? --bill
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]