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] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hph at oslo.net
Mon Aug 31 14:29:03 CEST 2015
On 31.08.2015 12:19, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: > Hi Hans, > > Do you know there is a "bug" in Android with IPv6? I am quite sure there are as many bugs in various systems. Acting professionally we should report these to the vendors and push to get them fixed. Some of the vendors take part in RIPE meetings - so working trough informal channels is also known to work. > > I had to disable IPv6 in all my customers due to this issue.(*) > > (*) https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=79576 > > While IPv6 is not fully supported by the majority of the devices, it > cant be deployed. I do know that 8% of the traffic seen by Google is IPv6 http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html and that Google sees more than 35% from Belgium - http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption So I beg to differ - IPv6 can indeed be deployed. Further discussion on deployment IPv6 belong in the IPv6 wg. In Address Policy you are welcome to propose changes to the policy. Hans Petter > > Regards, > > El 30/08/2015 a las 18:02, Hans Petter Holen escribió: >> On 28.08.2015 15:13, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> Anyone is free to suggest a better mechanism. If you have some >>> ideas which >>> are better that what's already there, please feel free to write a >>> proposal. >> >> Maybe something along the lines of "you can have a second /22" after a >> certain period of time if you only have a /22. >> >> The rationale behind this could be that RIPE NCC got more address space >> than anticipated when the last /8 was made. >> According to >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph >> >> RIPE NCC currently have 17.7 M IPv4 addresses left - which is slightly >> more than a /8 >> (https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph) >> >> >> NRO June figures: >> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nro.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FNRO_Q2_2015.pdf >> >> >> Afrinic: 2.7 >> RIPE NCC: 1.08 >> APNIC: 0,69 >> Lacnic: 0.16 >> Arin: 0.1 now down to 0.0015 >> >> So if somebody want to pursue this I suggest looking a t >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642 >> and create a proposal using the Policy template in Appendix B >> >> >> But it is really time to get serious about IPv6. >> (Since you can do Google and Facebook on v6 - what more do you want:-) >> -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net<mailto:hph at oslo.net> | http://hph.oslo.net
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]