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

On 2017-09-22 14:58:51 CET, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 22/09/17 12:11, jack _at_ k-net _dot_ 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.

We are getting there. Reachability of IPv4-only services is already degrading, with some(?) access carriers not operating their CGN gateways at the capacity needed for peak traffic times. Not least because they simply don't have enough IPv4 addresses to do that.

Rearding the proposed policy change I don't think it will really buy us a lot more time: Those members that use the existing policy to "buy" addresses by starting new LIRs will simply start 4 times as many new LIRs. On the other hand it won't do much harm either: De-aggregating of IPv4 space will continue anyway. So I'm undecided on the proposal.

Greetings,
Wolfgang

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum