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] Next steps for new LIRs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Arash Naderpour
arash_mpc at parsun.com
Fri Jun 12 12:24:01 CEST 2015
Hi Randy, "ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of community and they just cannot get over it. That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs > Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are > "skipping IPv4 completely"? i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should be using ipv6" religion. > I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of > their developing stage. yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't no more. > If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last > /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider > their conditions too. it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old discussions. it boiled down to o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new entrants at least run a NAT o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy phase. ah well. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]