[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Feb 8 10:25:16 CET 2019
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Daniel Suchy wrote: > Hello, Hello again, > On 2/8/19 9:15 AM, Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg wrote: >>> I think only one reason, which will really boost IPv6 adoption is real >>> exhaustion of IPv4 pool within our (RIPE) region. >> I also would like to see a stronger IPv6 adoption, and reach the point >> where IPv6 packets become dominant (i.e. >50%) and at a later stage >> reach a point where IPv4 routers/services/everything could be >> disconnected because they weren't useful anymore. > > Since there're happy-eyeball RFC implementations, it's somewhat harder > to perform such measurments. But I think IPv6 adoption was boosted in > regions, where IPv4 pool dried. It's difficult to measure accurately, and even harder to establish a cause/effect link from IPv4 dried pools. :-( Google is currently measuring (globally) around 25%, from 15% 2 years ago, and from 5% 4 years ago. I also read that as a "boost", yes :-) But unfortunately it's still a bit away from 50%... and we must not forget that Google is only one (big) content provider. There is still a lot of IPv4-only content around, and access to it naturally measures at 0%. >>> 2019-02 proposal is just delay this (and allowing more newcomers to >>> start their bussiness), nothing else. >> The core purpose of 2019-02 is to allow (more) newcomers to access a >> tiny bit of IPv4 address space so their (hopefully IPv6-enabled) >> infrastructure will have path to the IPv4-only world (without going to >> the market). > > Yes, I understand this purpose and to be clear - I'm not against this > proposal (that means, I support it). /24 allocations for newcomers are > also used within ARIN region (since 2015 depletetion), so this cannot be > any problem with such limitation within our (RIPE) region. Thank You! Regards, Carlos > - Daniel >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]