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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG in Dubai (v1)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sun Sep 24 18:49:38 CEST 2017
Hi, On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 08:54:01PM +0100, Willy MANGA wrote: > Le 22/09/2017 à 08:47, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net a écrit : > > [...] > > I'm working around IPv6 since 2001. Anna and Randy probably since before > > that. We have deployed IPv6. It didn't enable us to completely get rid of > > IPv4 within our networks. That also didn't solve any issue for 3rd party > > networks -- they all still need IPv4 addresses. > > being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today , > these people really need IPv4 addresses ? Or at least why they cannot > start a transition process towards IPv6? The problem is not "the new people" - the problem is "all the other people". What good is having an all-ipv6-network when your users will not be able to shop at, say, www.amazon.de, because that content site is IPv4-only? So you need to have some sort of IPv6-to-IPv4 translator device - and that one needs a few IPv4 adresses. And vice versa, if you host content, you'll need to be able to serve your content to those ISPs like Telefonica that have "no plans to implement IPv6, we can do this all with Carrier Grade NAT44!" [they did a press release to that extent, a few years ago...] - so, a few IPv4 addresses to tack on your load balancers, so they can server IPv6-only content to IPv4-only users... This is the real dilemma here: new entrants on the market feel the pain of old entrants not moving forward. Of course for the old entrants, this is a highly convenient way to keep their costs down, and everyone else's costs high ("externalize", as it has been said before) Gert Doering -- concerned Internet user -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170924/c6a3ec87/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG in Dubai (v1)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]