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

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Martin Hun?k wrote:

>> Or go to "the IPv4 market".
>
> Also a possibility, but it would cost additional money.

Sure, but that's life. And it doesn't mean IPv4 is being abandoned. :/



>> 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).

Maybe. But that will be each ORG's choice, -if- prefixes longer than /24 
start to get accepted.


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

Businesses are born, they get mature and eventually they stop making 
sense. It's a normal lifecycle...

Regards,
Carlos


> Regards,
> Martin