[address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Willy MANGA
mangawilly at gmail.com
Sat Sep 23 21:54:01 CEST 2017
Hi, Le 22/09/2017 à 08:47, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net a écrit : > [...] > I'm working around IPv6 since 2001. Anna and Randy probably since before > that. We have deployed IPv6. It didn't enable us to completely get rid of > IPv4 within our networks. That also didn't solve any issue for 3rd party > networks -- they all still need IPv4 addresses. being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today , these people really need IPv4 addresses ? Or at least why they cannot start a transition process towards IPv6? Regards, -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170923/1fe5960c/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]