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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
William Weber
ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com
Fri Jul 27 12:14:39 CEST 2012
Dear Paolo, I had a BT line in Italy (Now "Albacom" i think, AS8968) and i am not sure what you mean... We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) I am also not sure what you refer to with the IPv6 problems - Just buy Level3, GBLX, Telecom Italia, Cogent or whatever transit - Why do you need to rely on the local telco? (Is there no Last Line Unbundling in Italy?) Our ISP in Milano does IPv6 over DSL as well (and over FTTH, and in our case to our colocation)..... -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william at edisglobal.com | william at edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 27.07.2012 um 12:05 schrieb Paolo Di Francesco: > 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 > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120727/435587a5/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]