[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg

Le 29/10/2015 15:29, Daniel Suchy a écrit :
> Hello,
> connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network
> design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are
> using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're
> mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part
> of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on
> the marked cappable doing that job.

ipv6 sucks.  we need ipv4 ASN based end to end routing.

bst regards.


>
> The only one real solution is move to IPv6. Everything else is just a
> workaround for a short period. And as we cannot kill IPv4, for long
> period we'll need both protocols - and also new organizations should
> have possibility to start their business and get *some* adresses - as
> long as possible.
>
> Conservative RIPE policy helps in that manner. Everything else is just
> attempt to pillage in short-term...
>
> With regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> On 29.10.2015 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we
>> became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting  a /22.
>>
>> From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today
>> every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made
>> from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs
>> (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to
>> every our customer.
>>
>>  
>>
>> There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a
>> lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
>>
>> I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or
>> should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really
>> needs them.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best Regards
>>