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]/
[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Vesna Manojlovic
BECHA at ripe.net
Wed Aug 10 13:44:24 CEST 2011
For what it's worth... some extra information about IPv6 deployment levels: On 8/9/11 3:48 AM, Ivan M Makarenko wrote: > Let me describe the situation from my point of view. > > I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to > deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. We did analysis of "IPv6 Ripeness" in June last year, and Emile Aben published the results in an article on Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/content-ipv6-ripeness-sequel First graph confirms Ivan's opinion: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/images/userfiles-image-v6ripeness-v6-ripeness-category.png Our of 62 members on "extra large" billing category, 80% had v6 space, and 40% had all "4 stars" on IPv6 Ripeness; "large" are also above the average/median. You can see that the hight of relative IPv6 Ripeness levels are directly proportional to the category size. Regards, Vesna Manojlovic, RIPE NCC > Assuming LARGE members as > a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we > get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region, > we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE), > but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6 > transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6 > networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4 > cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get > nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be > empty pipes and no content. > > Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider > wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for > IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the > reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any, > will regulate themselves). > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. > JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]