[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 22/09/17 12:11, jack at k-net.pro wrote:
> Today at $work, there is nothing planned to get rid of IPv4. Why should
> we ? Buying some is less expensive than working on hybrid solution.

That actually raises a good point: consider the enterprise that has
enough IPv4 addresses for the next 30 years of company operation.
Perhaps they manufacture really nice deck chairs, or something. They
won't be buying any IPv4, because they don't need any more.

Does expensive IPv4 incentivise them to switch to IPv6? No.

Companies of this ilk exist, and in their droves. None of them
contribute to this list because they don't care one jot, as long as the
WWW works. Bad IPv4 connectivity needs to break their access to the WWW
before IPv6 will be anywhere on the list of that company's activities.

This is _the_ business case for everyone, all the way from that
situation, to those that are full blown ISPs: IPv4 needs to stop working
before IPv6 will be considered by the vast majority of resource holders.

It's primarily because of this that I'm against 2017-03:

 1.  It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment
 2.  It may go as far as to seriously impact the size of the DFZ
 3.  I see no benefit over the current policy

Regards,

-- 
Tom

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170922/8b558dd0/attachment.sig>