[address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Nick,

Le 23/09/2017 à 21:41, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
> Willy MANGA wrote:
>> being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today ,
>> these people really need IPv4 addresses ?
> 
> I'd be tempted to answer, except that you sent this email from an ipv4
> address.  So, please deconfigure all IPv4 addresses from your computer,
> re-send the email, and then I'll answer.

>From where I stand (at home in Cameroon, Central Africa), My ISP has /32
on v6 since 2013 but nothing deployed. Why ? I suspect ignorance and no
incentive.
I use to poke some friends working in telco fields; they say they are
some work in the background :)

>From where I work, I did my best to deploy IPv6 in our networks [1] [2]
Our ISP here has its v6 prefix since ... 11 years.  We are its first
customer requesting v6 and they deploy it for us.

I keep pushing in my area but as you may guess, it's the most difficult
one but I succeed at least in my organisation.

So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand
hurdles on european continent.

I hope this time, it will be clearer :)


1. https://nda.manbene.net/index.php/s/JJPCt8OVzoxNXCv (english)

2. https://nda.manbene.net/index.php/s/j5himX7Bfjk7OaV (french)

>> Or at least why they cannot
>> start a transition process towards IPv6?
> 
> Without ipv4 addresses, transition technologies don't work.

Assuming those who request v4 addresses have a transition plan (what I
deeply hope ... )


P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot
still use a v6 prefix ;)