nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIPE our of IPv4
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks () vt edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:47:37 -0500
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry () interhost net> wrote:  I believe itâs Eyeball networkâs matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.
It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is mostly happening today with CGN.
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stack, and eyeball networks can more easily move a /16 or even bigger to mostly IPv6 and a small CGNAT address space than content providers can free up IPv4 addresses during the time that dual stack is still needed.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4, (continued)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Brandon Martin (Nov 30)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Matthew Kaufman (Nov 30)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Jared Mauch (Nov 30)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Matthew Kaufman (Nov 30)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Billy Crook (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Dmitry Sherman (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Mark Andrews (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Dmitry Sherman (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Doug Barton (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Valdis Klētnieks (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Mike Hammett (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Doug Barton (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Brandon Martin (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Doug Barton (Nov 25)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 bzs (Nov 26)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Matt Palmer (Nov 26)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Matthew Kaufman (Nov 30)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Sabri Berisha (Nov 26)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Ca By (Nov 26)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Brian Knight (Nov 27)