[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Sat Apr 16 18:56:17 CEST 2016
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, at 13:36, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > > > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" > > equals no business. > > And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more > IPv4. Some might survive if they can adapt to reality in time. > > Any current business model which depends on issuing a dedicated (public?) > IPv4 addresses to new customers is doomed. That model is simply not > sustainable any more. Either change the model or go bust. Pick one. For the moment it's "change model *AND* go bust". Or "refuse and try to survive" (but ultimately fail 95% of the time, with the current rules). Customers don't care very much about IPv6, CGN doesn't always work, transfer market is at a point difficult ot reach. Or you can just let "incumbets" develop a monopoly.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]