[address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

Hi Jim,

Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area.

Regards,

Arash Naderpour

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] 
Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 2:15 AM
To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: IPv6 connectivity in Iran


> On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:30, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> wrote:
> 
> As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159 belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled by government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is simply no IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian service providers. 
>  
> There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet.  there is also no IXP in the country.

Well that lack of IPv6 appears to be a major gap in the market and a worthwhile business opportunity with huge growth potential. So is the lack of an in-country IXP. IMO it’s up to the Iranian Internet community to tackle these issues and make the most of these business opporrtunities. It is probably inappropriate for this WG to discuss how to exploit these gaps. They can’t really be helped (or hindered) by RIPE address policy anyway. Mind you if anyone is minded to set up an IXP in Iran, they will have to move quickly if they need/want some IPv4 from the NCC for local interconnect and peering.

PS: Apologies for a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.