<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body smarttemplateinserted="true" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="smartTemplate4-quoteHeader">Hi *,<br>
<br>
initially reading, nowadays just browsing over the posts about
2015-05, I don't get it ...<br>
<br>
Yes, I understand the pain new LIRs have with the limited
availability of v4 addresses. We have a small local provider, a
small city that has gone through the trouble of installing a FO
infrastructure to provide high-speed internet to most of its
citizens, and has to do with their /22 assignment (they became an
LIR to get those) for something around (currently) 3k customers,
of those something like 100+ businesses. They run native v6
dual-stacked with CGN v4, which - especially for the business
customers - isn't the optimal solution (just using a /29 for each
business would more or less deplete their public v4 range). So
yes, they would love to get more v4, but they can't.<br>
<br>
I keep reading phrases like "it's not fair", "it's
anti-competitive". Hell yes it is. But business has never been
fair. If you're coming late to a supper, you may not get all the
best pieces of the food that was available at the beginning. If
you're late to the business, many customers will already have
found a different provider for their requirements and will often
not even talk to you. So what, you have to live with it. You knew
you were a late entry, if you didn't know what you were getting
into, if you are surprised by the limitations of both the market
itself and RIPE specifically, you obviously didn't do your
homework! Heck, even if you already have a /20, /19 or whatever
and are running out of v4 addresses - why are you surprised? v4
was running out a long time ago, which was only delayed by NAT
"technology", a kluge to allow for a better technology (IPv6) to
be finished and rolled out - 15 years later and too many providers
still do not see the necessity of rolling out v6.<br>
<br>
Who is to blame? Well, of course those providers, most likely ones
that still have sufficient amounts of free v4 addresses. To a
minor degree possibly their customers, as they ought to be
requesting dual-stacked internet from their ISPs. But why should
they? Everything is working, and setting up v6 doesn't (in most
cases) earn them any benefits.<br>
<br>
So what could be done? Technically, not much I guess. Sure, we
could level the playing field, the RIRs could pass a policy
retracting half of all assigned v4 addresses annually from anybody
holding - say - /20 or larger. Even going down to 50% would most
likely require many LIRs to actually roll out v6, apart from annoy
a whole lot of people, as the ISPs would be forced to renumber the
remaining IP assignments to their customers.<br>
<br>
Would such a policy change be enforceable? I doubt it, or at the
very least many of the larger ISPs will fight it with all they
have (read: law suits).<br>
<br>
So, as it is, we have a situation in which many large ISPs give a
f*ck about the IPv4 scarcity, stick with their pool of v4
addresses and wait until actual customers request v6, which won't
happen, so there is no business case to implement it for quite
some time. Many other ISPs have to make do, and are at a weaker
business position than should be necessary, but there's nothing we
as a RIPE community can do except keep up the current policy to at
least allow for SOME possibility of getting on the net for new
entries, and keep pushing v6 in the market, in a hope to make
customers aware of the necessity of v6 to THEIR business! Maybe
then more ISPs will finally invest in the future of their part of
the Internet. <br>
</div>
<br>
<div id="smartTemplate4-template">Oh, and just in case you were
still wondering: I'm against loosening the last /8 policy ...<br>
<br>
Garry<br>
<br>
--<br>
<div class="moz-signature"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>