[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

Hi,
(reply inline)

Dne čtvrtek 7. února 2019 9:40:25 CET jste napsal(a):
> Hi,
> (please see inline)
> 
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Martin Hun?k wrote:
> > What I'm afraid of is pressure for further deaggregation of those last
> > /24s. Even now in the mailing list there was opinion that just one /24
> > is useless because you can't assign from it to another entity. Not
> > talking about fact that if you have same amount of LIR on waiting list
> > when everybody wants 4x more, the waiting list is 4x longer time-wise.
> > Longer list = less probability of getting IPv4 ~ no more IPv4 -> had to
> > go for IPv6.
> 
> Or go to "the IPv4 market".

Also a possibility, but it would cost additional money.
> 
> IPv4 is NOT "walking dead". It's the Internet's dominant protocol version,
> whether we like it or not!
> 
> How many orgs have gone public about plans to completely drop IPv4?
> 
> IPv4 has a serious limitation about "future growth", which IPv6 doesn't
> have. But people are making (a lot of?) money pushing IPv4 numbers
> from hand to  hand, so it is hard for me (at this point, from a research &
> education network background!) to see how IPv4 will stop being the
> dominant version...

Yes it is still dominant, no dispute here. But as well we (theoretically) 
buried it long time ago. That's why the "walking dead" thing. Point is that 
with up to /32 in routing tables we would be investing RAM on IPv4 instead of 
for IPv6 deployment (if not done already).

And yes, there is quite a lot of money in IPv4. In hypothetical IPv6-only 
world, IP brokers would starve to death. :-)

Regards,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190207/ebc1c41e/attachment.sig>