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] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Riccardo Gori
rgori at wirem.net
Tue May 24 05:59:52 CEST 2016
Hi Nick, Il 22/05/2016 13:10, Nick Hilliard ha scritto: > Riccardo Gori wrote: >>> There are no good solutions to the problem at hand, only compromises. >>> If the current policy is changed to something else, the people who >>> benefit in the short term will be happier and the people who pay for >>> this generosity will be disappointed. >> IPv6 > If ipv6 provided full backwards compatibility with ipv4, it would be a > solution. > > Any organisation which is forced into providing ipv4 connectivity using > an ipv6 transition mechanism will operate at a competitive disadvantage > to an organisation which can provide native ipv4. This isn't a swipe at > ipv6: it's simply an observation that we have come to depend on features > of ipv4 which cannot be fully replicated using ipv6 transition mechanisms. > > This is why I referred to migrating to ipv6 as a compromise. Long term, > it may be a good compromise and many years down the road, it may even be > better than ipv4. But as long as there are ipv4 addresses available, it > is condemned to being second best by the legacy of the existing > single-stacked ipv4 install base. IPv6 is the solution provided to us by IETF to grow the internet. I saw many limitations of IPv4 were exceeded by technology solutions p2p, nat etc. it can happen for IPv6 too, some breaking technology can speed up the adoption and maybe new ideas can overcome use difficulties or limitations >> every policy that makes IPv6 adoption a must can help slow down IPv4 >> allocation rate and in the meanwhile will even lower IPv4 maket value >> [...] > I don't believe there is any evidence to support either of these statements. I just saw very to low interest in IPv6 around policies and this make me have a bad feeling, that's it. > > Also, please bear in mind that if strong policies caused better adoption > of new protocols, we would be having this discussion using X.400. > > Nick regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info at wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160524/149c3e00/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160524/149c3e00/attachment.jpg>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]