[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Riccardo Gori <rgori at wirem.net> wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> Il 23/05/2016 14:38, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
>
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Riccardo Gori <rgori at wirem.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> thank you for your questions. I try to answer below
>>
>> Il 21/05/2016 09:45, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> So I ask _again_, where is the IPv4 need? What type of usage is it ment
> for? We've passed the "it's nice to have" some years ago, now we're down to
> , do you _really_ need 10 addresses? Can you survive with 2 and deploy IPv6?
>
> I think I answered, It's not nice to have, It's business demand and LIRs
> should be able to offer... with a /22 I can serve just up to 2 or 3 of my
> tipical business  customers.
> This is lack of competitiveness.
>

sorry if I sound hard/insulting, to me it sounds like you have an outdated
business model that are doomed to go down soon, you can't grow this way.
Change to IPv6 where you actual can have some growth and option for the
future.


What you are illustrating is that somehow, despite all the effort from many
parties the world do not seems to understand that there are no more IPv4,
the growth has to come from IPv6.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160523/fcd3c6fe/attachment.html>