[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

On 23.04.2015 17:04, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 16:37, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, I don't want to soften the "last /8" policy ... as
>> Alex already mentioned. A business which needs IPv4 to survive does
>> something wrong ...
> 
> Today, 23/04/2015, a business *DOES* need IPv4 to survive. IPv6 is still
> seen as a "geek thing", and a lot of things are still badly implemented
> (if implemented at all) over IPv6.
> The policy, the way it is, just keps the agony going on for a very long
> time, at least in RIPE-land.

Yes, you need IPv4, but you'd don't need *more* IPv4. At least not more
as you can legally receive from RIPE without cheating.

Techniques like 6to4, CGN etc. exist ... for a business to survive, it
actually is enough to rollout these things...

But I agree - and see it almost daily with my customers - in a lot of
heads rolling out V6 and using the mentioned things ends in: "we fear to
rollout V6, it is working with V4 so we don't want to spend time to test
if V6 is working properly" ... and then, one day and as unforseeable as
Christmas coming end of December, they discover they'd need more V4 to
grow but can't get and suddenly they need to hurry, they make mistakes
in implementing as they are in hurry and they shout out "you see, IPv6
integration is bullshit" only because they forgot some config-changes.


BR Jens

-- 
Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team
Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b
53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
Email: jo at opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989