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] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] desperate for ipv4 much?
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paolo Di Francesco
paolo.difrancesco at level7.it
Fri Jul 27 17:02:08 CEST 2012
Hi Max they say IP not IPv4 or IPv6 so IPv6 is a valid techinque, but you know then if you are "pure public IPv6 address " you still have the problem of reaching IPv4 content on the network. To solve this issue I suggested another point of view which starts from some assumptions: the ITalian traffic is mostly on-net traffic. The assumption can be wrong but most of the traffic (in terms of bytes) comes from: 1) google/youtube/facebook OTT traffic: afaik they natively support IPv6 and usually they are located in Italy (as well as other countries) 2) peer2peer traffic and most of that traffic is done on Italian content (we do not speak english so most of users search for Italian content, which most probably stays on net) 3) content providers: they are Italian content providers (most of them are the same big telcos) Now, my assumption is that if tomorrow morning we wake up and we have: a) end user dual stack (so the stack can decide if it goes on IPv6 or IPv4) b) ITALIAN content providers with dual stack then I think we could easily jump from the current 1-5% to 60% or more of the Italian IPv6 bytes (my personal opinion). The problem stays with the rest of 40% or less of the traffic but in any case the proposed NAT and no IPv6 transition mechanism does not sound like a good idea to me Regards, Paolo > It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point > what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - > then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal > enough ;) > > 27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco написав(ла): >>> 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....) >> >> As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some >> form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" >> with is quite long to explain. >> >> But the law says "one contract = one public IP". >> >> Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;) > > ---- > 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. > -- 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
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] desperate for ipv4 much?
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]