I'm talking about the statistics presented even at RIPE 71 in Bucharest
last year, where IPv6 capability in US grew 5% between 05.2015 and 11.2015.
Coming back to the policy discussion, I don't see why keeping 185/8 for
new entrants wouldn't be a viable solution. It's the exact thing which
was intended when the last /8 policy was created.
On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <[email protected]> wrote:
but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools,
resulted directly in IPV6 growth.
Well, no, not if you look at
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6
growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now).
Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
What statistics are you referring to?
The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we’ll “never” run out, but
that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and some
amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they’re on the very last fumes of v4
address space as they had no such policy.
Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4
pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then
IPv6 will explode.
The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But those
take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from that. In
the UK, Sky’s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project where, I
believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than investing in
bigger CGNATs.
Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number
growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated
a lot of the new LIR's to appear.
I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So
we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed.
The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several years,
and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 -
https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre - so the help on IPv6 has
been there for the taking...
Tim
With regards,
Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6"
which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against
proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged
against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It
simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition.
Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged*
by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small
startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can
get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away
space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
