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

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 17:20, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
> 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.

Yes, you do. From the last 4 companies I worked for, 2 of them wouldn't
be in business anymore if they were limited to a /22. The 4th one is
still too new to suffer. The 3rd was the only one OK with that.
Most impacted are the "server hosting" providers.

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

Nice competitive disadvantage. I will have my own answers and field
experience on the subject in less than 1 year. Do you ?

> 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

Some of them don't. For the moment NAT seems to be more easier to deal
with then switching to IPv6. 192.168.1.100 is still easier to understand
than fe80::224:9bff:fe0d:beef (and the 9 other GUAs I have on my
computer right now). This is valid for the CxOs and for the guys that
write software, not the ones that run a network.