[members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region

Hi William


> WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest
> access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they
> run NAT now...

I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things 
clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy:

1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for 
each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one 
company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated)
2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of 
"connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the 
Italian government
3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will 
never implement it so far because:
3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6
3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if 
they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 
traffic...)
3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide 
dual stack
3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem 
brand, I don't know)
3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6

We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: 
no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some 
years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6

Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future 
ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, 
long time.

Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it 
will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge 
damage for the whole community.

It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying 
more than big telcos.

Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a 
commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the 
better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions 
untouched.

Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers????

But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 
and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the 
hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those 
two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy 
for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration

As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are 
happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration 
mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back 
to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are 
60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right?

Best regards


-- 


Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
Fax : +39-091-8772072
assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
web: http://www.level7.it