[members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world

You didn't fully read my initial post, the MTU with IPv4+ will not be a fixed MTU of 1500 or of any other fixed value, it will be set in the beginning of the connection through a process called: "IPv4+ UDP Handshake"

Respectfully,
Elad


________________________________
From: Tobias Lehner
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:51 AM
To: Elad Cohen; 'noc'; Ed Campbell
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world


You cannot be sure to have MTU of 1500 everywhere… Normally routers should not do anything with df bit, but it is possible to flip the df bit on the router. It is required for some cases.



Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards



Tobias Lehner



Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG



Von: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:48
An: Tobias Lehner <tl at hartl-edv.de>; 'noc' <noc at xervers.pt>; Ed Campbell <campbell at inca.ie>
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world



Tobias,



Routers will not do anything with the DF and MF flags as long that MTU is fine (and MTU is initially checked with "IPv4+ UDP Handshake")



I wrote in previous reply an adjustment to the idea that is quicker to deploy and will not require the routers, but it will lack the RIRs being able to allocate and to assign IPv4+ addresses to LIRs. Each LIR will automatically receive an additional IPv4 address for each current IPv4 address that it have:



--------

Here is an optional adjustment to the idea:



Only end-users and servers operating systems will be updated (using the operating systems automatic updating mechanism), using the same way that I wrote with the exact same feasible IPv4 packet modification implementation (reserved bit, no fragmentation, fragmentation flags, udp handshake), no other equipment will need to be updated, no routers will need to be updated at all - but then the routing of IPv4+ addresses will always be to the same destination device that have the same four bytes of destination IPv4 address (meaning routing will be as it is now - based on IPv4 and not on IPv4+).



In this way, the number of IPv4 addresses will be doubled and each ASN will double his number of IPv4 addresses, each ASN will have his exact same ip addresses but in two formats - in IPv4 format and in IPv4+ format. (if the community is lazy and don't want to upgrade the needed routers by IT professionals, and it is not the whole routers in the world, far far far less)

--------



Respectfully,

Elad





________________________________

From: Tobias Lehner
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:43 AM
To: 'noc'; Elad Cohen; Ed Campbell
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
Subject: AW: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world



Hi,



Furthermore, every router in the connection can/may add/remove the df bit, which breaks your idea. We should really go in the direction of IPv6.



Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards



Tobias Lehner



Hartl-EDV GmbH & Co. KG



Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> Im Auftrag von noc
Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2020 09:23
An: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>; Ed Campbell <campbell at inca.ie<mailto:campbell at inca.ie>>
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world



Hello Elad.

I've been reading all the messages you sent. I see that you try hard to push your vision. But here's some reasons to what you suggest doesn't work and will never work:

- the extra 2 bits you suggest to use (fragmentation bits) are there for a reason. And that reason is not to have more ips, but to fragment packets when needed. On a perfect worldwide network, they aren't needed. But we are on a imperfect worldwide network and many systems need packet fragmentation to work (satellite systems by example).

- it's not possible to upgrade millions of routers. Many reached end-of-life many years ago. If the ISP switch the router, he will deploy right away ipv6.

- IPv4+ will not give more time to deploy IPv6. It will only delay it. Everyone is lazy for different reasons. So, if IPv4 works, why deploy IPv6? No. It's been since 2012 that we (RIPE) announced the exhaustion of IPv4. And very few has been done to push IPv6.

- enterprises like Microsoft will earn a lot more of IPv4+ if they implement it... Why will they bother? They already have 2 /8 legacy not being used/routed. And this is the same for a lot other companies. Many already invested a lot on IPv6, will they do new investments for IPv4+ knowing that is a dead end? No.

- IPv4+ is easy to implement. Wrong. It's hard. It will need to be implemented on each level till the top (IANA), and I doubt the very top will do anything to change this.



Looking at the statistics everywhere, I see that IPv6 implementation his growing a lot since September. And this, yes. It's a good news.



Your idea should've be pushed 15 years ago (before the running out announcement), not now. Now there is nothing it can be done.



Cheers



Enviado a partir do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy.





-------- Mensagem original --------

De : Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>

Data: 26/04/20 00:54 (GMT+01:00)

Para: Ed Campbell <campbell at inca.ie<mailto:campbell at inca.ie>>

Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>

Assunto: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world



Indeed demand is rising, but I don't believe that the world will use more than 4 billion new IPv4 addresses in 5 years, it will not happen, the RIRs already have very strict policies that will continue to be used, IPv4+ will not end fast - it will provide many many years that in them migration to IPv6 will be able to be completed quietly. (without the world to be in any problem)



The only reason that IPv4 exhausted recently is because companies from all over the world were told that IPv4 is about to end (and this was the brainwash) so they opened LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last /22's - this is the only reason. And people that are doing money out of it. But if each RIR will have 800+ new million ip addresses and the RIRs will use strict policies to provide them and there will not be a shortage and the public will know that there isn't a shortage of IPv4 - then you will see that companies will not open LIR accounts like crazy just to get the last IPv4 addresses.



Respectfully,

Elad

________________________________

From: Ed Campbell <campbell at inca.ie<mailto:campbell at inca.ie>>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:39 AM
To: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>
Cc: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov at interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov at interlan.se>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> <members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world



IPv6 isn’t slow because of the lack of trying, it is slow because of Microsoft et al’s unwillingness to adopt it. If it became the default IP stack to use on all operating systems rather than a “nice to have” “feature” attitudes would change.



3-4 times you have said now that it would take another 25 years to exhaust this “new” IPv4 space, that just doesn’t track with the current demand for addressing. You’d only be delaying and thwarting existing efforts to deploy IPv6.

Sent from my iPhone



On 25 Apr 2020, at 22:34, Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>> wrote:



Torbjorn,



IPv6 cannot communicate directly with IPv4, while IPv4+ can communicate directly with IPv4.



Technicians don't have to know anything about IPv4+ (and not to know how it internally works) besides to know how to upgrade the firmware of a router and how to update a patch to an operating system, in contrary to IPv6 that Technicians need to know it completely in order to design an IPv6 network and for it also to work with IPv4.



I didn't write that I'm against learning or implementing IPv6, I wrote my opinion on why deployment of IPv6 is slow and will be slow.



It took us approximately 25 years to use almost 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses, the same number of ip addresses IPv4+ will bring us at least more 25 years.



CGNAT is not good for datacenters, and datacenter needs and will need more IPv4 addresses.



Respectfully,

Elad

________________________________

From: Torbjörn Eklöv <torbjorn.eklov at interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov at interlan.se>>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:15 AM
To: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>
Cc: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu at safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>>; Atif Naveed <a.naveed at go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed at go.com.sa>>; noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> <members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world



Elad,

>
> Because IPv6 is a completely different network than IPv4, IPv4+ is the same network of IPv4.

No, IPv4+ is also a complete new network that no OS supports and no technician can understand now.  It’s more complicated and more time consuming than deploying IPv6.


> (IPv6 require complete new network design, much more to learn for companies/organizations and much more expenses for companies/organizations. IPv4+ will give more time and space that is needed in the world today)

Yes, it’s "new“ but you had +20 years to learn IPv6 and you have time now to learn it now while CGNAT is growing.  IPv4+ just extends the time a little bit more.

/Tobbe


>
> Respectfully,
> Elad
> From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu at safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>>
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:04 PM
> To: Atif Naveed <a.naveed at go.com.sa<mailto:a.naveed at go.com.sa>>; Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> <members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>>
> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> Dear Atif,
>
> Respectfully, we have IPv6 sessions with Tier1 and peering networks and have had for some years now.
> I’m not sure there is a Tier1 who doesn’t offer IPv6.
> Most UK ISP’s now provide IPv6 by default to people’s homes.
>
> I agree the uptake has been incredibly slow, which is why I don’t think IPv4+ will be any better. We all updated kit for IPv6 providing trillions more IP addresses to each LIR but the uptake has been slow.
> Why would the uptake be faster for IPv4+?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Stuart Willet.
>
> From: Atif Naveed [mailto:a.naveed at go.com.sa]
> Sent: 25 April 2020 20:30
> To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu at safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>>; Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> Dear Stuart,
>
> Hold your horses, till day where IPv6 stands not near to 1 to 10% of utilization across internet. So in so many years IPv6 still not able to catch the eyes of Tier1 or any ISP or simple users.
>
> So what Elad is offering is still very good option to move ahead at this stage before ipv6 takes off its flight in next decade or so.
>
> And I can understand deployment will be not that’s straight forward but once it starts flying it will make its own  path .
>
> Regards
>
>
> Atif Naveed
> Sr. Specialist
> IGW/ISP Core Network Operations
> D:+966-11511-1263
> E:a.naveed at go.com.sa
> www.go.com.sa<http://www.go.com.sa>
>
> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Stuart Willet (primary)
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:21 PM
> To: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> Respectfully, I do not think you have fully considered the logistics involved in updating so much hardware and software.
>
> What about all the L3 switches and routers not owned by ISP’s?
> What about bigger ISP’s ad Tier 1’s? Do you honestly believe NTT or Telia will update millions of network devices worldwide for a /21?
>
> Honestly, the update alone is unfeasible, especially when we already have fully working IPv6.
>
> On that note, everyone has been given an incredible amount of IPv6 space, but this has not picked up anywhere near fast enough.
> I appreciate you believe IPv4+ will be more compatible, but it simply will not work unless the entire world updates all IP based switching and routing platforms as well as operating systems and bespoke hardware.
>
> Best,
> Stuart Willet.
>
> From: Elad Cohen [mailto:elad at netstyle.io]
> Sent: 25 April 2020 20:13
> To: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu at safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>>; noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> My main issue is that it is not a replacement for IPv6, it is just an additional pool of ip addresses for IPv4, I do understand that IPv4 ip addresses don't come near to the amount of ip addresses in IPv6, but we will always have devices that are too old to be upgraded to IPv6 and the solution I wrote is doubling the amount of IPv4 (comparing to IPv6 it is meaning less but comparing to the number of ip addresses in IPv4 it is doubling the amount of IPv4), and I do believe that more IPv4 addresses will make the transition to IPv6 faster (everyone will be able to support both IPv6 and IPv4 and then transition to only-IPv6 will be smoother).
>
> Regarding the number of devices:
>        • Any routing device with more than two physical routes
>        • Any BGP router
>        • Any operating system
> The operating systems updates can be fast through their automatic update systems, regarding updating the routing equipment - if each ASN will be know the he will receive a free /21 from the IPv4+ you will see that it will be fast as well (and after it each of the 5 RIRs will have more than 800,000,000 new IPv4 addresses).
>
> When the ip protocol was created with the saved reserved bit, the reserved bit was saved for just such case, for the case that we are in, what better use would be to the reserved bit in the IPv4 packet header if not to double the amount of IPv4 addresses (at the last stage of the transition to IPv6).
>
> Respectfully,
> Elad
> From: Stuart Willet (primary) <stu at safehosts.co.uk<mailto:stu at safehosts.co.uk>>
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:01 PM
> To: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>; noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net%3cmembers-discuss at ripe.net>>
> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> Sorry, there are far too many Layer3 switches and routers which already support IPv6 and would need to be updated to support IPv4+.
> There are also many firewalls, both hardware and software which would need updating but can already use IPv6.
>
> If you had proposed this before the introduction of IPv6 I am sure it would have worked, but it is inferior to IPv6 in two respects.
> 1: it would require updating millions of routers, L3 switches, firewalls, operating systems and 3rd party devices.
> 2: it would not offer anywhere close to the amount of IPv6 addresses which already work.
>
> Best,
> Stuart Willet.
>
> From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elad Cohen
> Sent: 25 April 2020 19:56
> To: noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> It is not a complete new protocol, the reserved bit (in IPv4 packet header) was intended to be reserved for future use, the future usage of it was planned.
>
> I'm not against IPv6, but IPv6 is not backward compatible with IPv4 by design and the world currently need more IPv4 addresses, the number of IPv4 addresses can be easily doubled even in one week, through operating system update of the biggest operating system vendors and simple firmware upgrades by the routing equipment manufacturers.
>
> switches are working on layer2, they are not related to ip.
>
> Respectfully,
> Elad
>
> From: noc xervers <noc at xervers.pt<mailto:noc at xervers.pt>>
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 9:48 PM
> To: Elad Cohen <elad at netstyle.io<mailto:elad at netstyle.io>>; members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> <members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>>
> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> That won't be IPv4 but a complete new protocol, and routers/switches/whatever won't support them.
> It's a better and cleaner solution to move to IPv6.
>
> Cheers.
>
> <image001.jpg>
> NOC xervers | +351 300 404 316
> P   Please consider the environment before printing this email
> <image002.jpg>  <image002.jpg>
> <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg>
>
>
> De: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> Em Nome De Elad Cohen
> Enviada: sábado, 25 de abril de 2020 20:21
> Para: members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> Assunto: [members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I want to share with you my technical solution to the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem (without to upgrade each and every router that exist in the internet), using the below implementation there will be more 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses that the world needs so much:
>
> Currently in an IPv4 packet - the source address and the destination address are being represented each by four bytes, each of these four bytes are being displayed as: [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255]
>
> But it is up to us to choose how we want to display them, for example: four bytes can also be displayed as [0-65535].[0-65535] (two numbers and one dot, the two numbers are bigger because in total they also being represented as four bytes)
>
> So there can be one set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (the one that we know in the display format of [0-255].[0-255].[0-255].[0-255])
>
> and another set of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses (with a new format of [0-65535].[0-65535])
>
> We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header - in order to know if the source address is of the old formatting (IPv4) or of the new formatting (lets call it IPv4+), for that mark the 'reserved bit' in the ip header can be used, so in case the source address is of IPv4+ or in case that the destination address is of IPv4+ (or in case that both the source and destination addresses are of IPv4+) then the reserved bit in the ip header will be set to 1 , we then also need to know exactly if the source address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) and if the destination address is of IPv4+ or not (meaning of IPv4) - this can be done by marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the DF flag if the source address is of IPv4) and marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4+ (and not marking the MF flag if the destination address is of IPv4), by using the DF and MF bits which are related to fragmentation (whenever the reserved bit is set to '1') we are losing the ip fragmentation functionality for any traffic with an IPv4+ address (for traffic between two IPv4 addresses, the reserved bit is not set to '1' and hence optional ip fragment functionality is unchanged)
>
> We need to know the MTU before an IPv4+ packet will be sent, because no fragmentation will be able to be done with IPv4+ , the current "Path MTU Discovery" (RFC 1191) is not good for that case because it is using the DF bit which we are using as well (and in IPv4+ traffic a DF flag set to 1 is marking that the source address is of IPv4+), and also ICMP protocol can be blocked by routers in the routing path, the solution is to send multiple udp requests (with fixed known MTU sizes) to the destination address (lets call it IPv4+ handshake) - the destination address may or may not receive them (in case a router in the routing path have multiple upstreams and wasn't upgraded to an upper version that supports IPv4+ then it will not recognize the reserved bit and the DF and MF bits related to it, it will not recognize the new IPv4+ addresses and even if the reserved bit is set to '1' and MF flag is set to '1' in the ip packet - it will route to to the destination address just like it is an IPv4 address and not IPv4+ address, meaning to a completely different destination address) - in case the destination address indeed received the IPv4+ packets - it will send back the udp requests to the source address at the exact same sizes (with the reserved bit flag set to '1' and with the DF and MF flags set accordingly) - when the source address will receive them - the source address will know that the destination address is supporting IPv4+ , that ip packets with new IPv4+ formatting will reach the destination and the source address will know what is the biggest size of the udp request that was received - and it will be the MTU for that specific connection between the source and the destination addresses (The IPv4+ handshake will be done again if there is no response from the destination after the initial udp handshake was already completed successfully).
>
> The udp handshake between a source address and a destination address (that any of them or them both is an IPv4+ address) will use a specific udp port, an availalbe unassigned port between 0 to 1023, an operating system networking stack (that was updated for IPv4+ with the operating system automatic updating system) will know exactly what this udp port is for - and will react accordingly, the upgraded operating system networking stack will also check that the destination address (in the IPv4 or in the IPv4+ format) is set locally in the operating system, before sending the udp requests back to the source address (if not then the ip packet will be dropped by the upgraded operating system networking stack). Any operating system that wasn't upgraded to support IPv4+ - will just drop that kind of udp requests.
>
> IPv4+ is fully backward compatible to IPv4 (and any router that was not upgraded yet to IPv4+ will not cause IPv4 traffic to break), it is also not adding any new fields to ip packets or using new fields, IPv4+ will not cause any performance overload for any supported router.
>
> The reason that the MF and DF bits are being use for IPv4+ and not the ToS / IP-ID / Options in ip header are being used is because we cannot be 100% sure that the ToS / IP-ID / Options in the ip header will not be changed or dropped by any rouer in the routing path that wasn't upgraded to IPv4+ (and we don't want to upgrade any router in the world because it is an impossible mission) - in the ip header ToS is being cleared by some routers - IP-ID can be changed by NAT routers - Options field is dropped by many routers, we can trust that the DF and MF flags will not be modified in the routing path by routers that weren't upgraded to IPv4+.
>
> For the above solution not all the internet devices in the world needs to be patched/upgraded to support IPv4+ which is an impossible mission, end-users operating systems need to be upgraded (but it can be done simply using their automatic updating system), BGP routers (and any router with multiple physical routing paths) will need to have its firmware upgraded to support IPv4+, any NAT router that will want to use an external IPv4+ address will need to have its firmware upgraded (any NAT router that will use an external IPv4 address will not need to have its firmware upgraded, only the internet devices in the LAN of the NAT router will need to have a single operating system update in order for them to access IPv4+ addresses in the internet), any home router (not NAT) or home modem will not need to have a firmware upgrade and IPv4+ functionality will be transparent to them.
>
> The deployment of IPv4+ can be fairly easy and very fast, a round table of one person from each one of the 5 RIRs and from each one of the operating systems vendors and from each one of the router manufacture vendors. Even if IPv4+ will be deployed over time, it will not cause the internet to break (devices that need to be upgraded to IPv4+ and didn't yet will work exactly as they are now with IPv4, they will just not yet support IPv4+).
>
> The above will resolve the "IPv4 Exhaustion" problem and will bring to each one of the 5 RIRs almost 900,000,000 new IPv4+ addresses that will be able to the provided to the LIRs worldwide, if you have any question please let me know.
>
> Respectfully,
> Elad
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/torbjorn.eklov%40interlan.se

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
https://mailman.ripe.net/
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/campbell%40inca.ie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20200426/e296884e/attachment.html>