<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Yes. That's the slide I was talking about. I did see something else, somewhere regarding to US IPv6 capability growth also, but I can't remember where right now. It was an entire article. At our company we have implemented IPv6 for 2 years now, and we have made a lot of lobby with our upstream providers at that time to have them support IPv6. I am seeing things also from another viewpoint when I'm asking our customers to implement IPv6 capabilities in their infrastructures, and they are replying that if there are still IPv4 resources available they are not yet interested in investing time and money into this transition. Even if I might appear strange, my personal opinion is that allowing IPv4 transfers created the possibility to prolong for a lot of time the IPv4 life. This also means that IPv6 growth will lag for a long time also based on this decision. Now keeping resources which might prolong IPv4 life again, is another bad thing. Our common interest is that IPv6 reaches the point where it will become the main protocol, so why not think about all the ways to get there as soon as possible. I am looking for anyone who rejects this policy, to provide a statistic trend for the period of time allocations will still be possible from the 185/8 for new LIR's, while the IANA blocks be reallocated to existing *small* LIR's. Also a realistic forecast for new LIR's number in the upcoming 1-2-3 years, would be very nice to see and to correlate with my previous statement. As I have told before my personal opinion is that the new LIR number will slowly decrease comparative to 2014/2015. With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 17:09, Tim Chown wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:EMEW3|66c0da536bd2a397f38f601eddfc624fs3EF9A03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E87F67CB-4CE5-4BFB-969F-FCF9E2A292B1@ecs.soton.ac.uk" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 15 Apr 2016, at 14:33, Adrian Pitulac <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:adrian@idsys.ro"><adrian@idsys.ro></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> I'm talking about the statistics presented even at RIPE 71 in Bucharest last year, where IPv6 capability in US grew 5% between 05.2015 and 11.2015. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> It depends on your view. The Akamai stats at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/">http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/</a> suggest 2% increase over the same period, and linear growth that has flattened out a little. I suspect you mean slide 37 of <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ripe71.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/56-RIPE71-bucharest-v6.pdf">https://ripe71.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/56-RIPE71-bucharest-v6.pdf</a>, which shows linear/slowing growth over that period, from a high starting point. I don�t think that slide supports your argument at all, and in any event any significant deployment takes time, you can�t just magic it up when an event happens. And regardless of 2% or 5%, that growth is a mix of residential operators like Comcast, who were deploying anyway during that period, and the mobile operators (T-Mobile, ATT, VeriZon, etc), who were *already* going v6-only to the handsets with NAT64/464XLAT for legacy v4. The US is now at around 25% overall, according to Google, or 17% according to Akamai. Interesting how much those numbers vary. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Coming back to the policy discussion, I don't see why keeping 185/8 for new entrants wouldn't be a viable solution. It's the exact thing which was intended when the last /8 policy was created. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you�re starting a new venture v6 should be at the heart of what you�re doing. Tim </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:adrian@idsys.ro"><adrian@idsys.ro></a> wrote: but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Well, no, not if you look at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html">https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html</a>, which shows steady IPv6 growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now). Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html">http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html</a> What statistics are you referring to? The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we�ll �never� run out, but that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and some amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they�re on the very last fumes of v4 address space as they had no such policy. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But those take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from that. In the UK, Sky�s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project where, I believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than investing in bigger CGNATs. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several years, and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre">https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre</a> - so the help on IPv6 has been there for the taking... Tim </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hi, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*. If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time? Gert Doering -- APWG chair </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> <div class="moz-signature"> </div> </body> </html>