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

Hi,

> So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand
> hurdles on european continent.

I think the hurdles are roughly the same in all regions. Relying on only IPv4 is insanity, and those that do so deserve no sympathy. But as you have personally experienced IPv6 isn't available everywhere and for everything yet. Therefore everybody still needs some IPv4 to communicate with those laggards. 

This community has so far considered it its responsibility (statement based on current policy) to make sure new entrants can do so without having to rely on getting IPv4 addresses through/from third parties. For almost all participants on the internet having at least some IPv4 space is vital for at least the next decade. 

What they get is a tiny amount of IPv4 space from RIPE NCC when they sign up as LIR. So far that tiny amount has been a /22. Now that the end of those /22s is in sight this community has to choose. Either keep the current policy and let it run out completely and let newcomers fend for themselves (if possible, 32-bit space is finite and at some point the market will dry up and IPv4 space will become unavailable/unaffordable) or change the /22 to /24 and keep giving newcomers a tiny bit of addresses for a while longer (what is currently being proposed).

This community doesn't face an easy choice: keeping some IPv4 addresses available for newcomers can send the wrong message, that IPv4 hasn't "really" run out. Letting RIPE NCC run out completely will definitely fix that. On the other hand that will also send the message that the current internet participants want to keep newcomers out, or at last dependent on the willingness of current participant to part with some of their address space. That can be seen as anti-competitive and unfair. I really understand both sides of that argument (as I should, being a chair!).

In both scenarios relying on only IPv4 is insanity, and I have a strong feeling that this community does not have the slightest bit of sympathy for those planning to do so. They are beyond help, so let them spend their own money on a failing technology. Any sympathy is for those who come to the party late but still have to deal with the laggards (and idiots) already present.

> Assuming those who request v4 addresses have a transition plan (what I deeply hope ... )

One would indeed hope so.

> P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot still use a v6 prefix ;)

:)

Cheers!
Sander