Yes. That's the slide I was talking about. I did see something else,
somewhere regarding to US IPv6 capability growth also, but I can't
remember where right now. It was an entire article.
At our company we have implemented IPv6 for 2 years now, and we have
made a lot of lobby with our upstream providers at that time to have
them support IPv6.
I am seeing things also from another viewpoint when I'm asking our
customers to implement IPv6 capabilities in their infrastructures, and
they are replying that if there are still IPv4 resources available they
are not yet interested in investing time and money into this transition.
Even if I might appear strange, my personal opinion is that allowing
IPv4 transfers created the possibility to prolong for a lot of time the
IPv4 life. This also means that IPv6 growth will lag for a long time
also based on this decision.
Now keeping resources which might prolong IPv4 life again, is another
bad thing.
Our common interest is that IPv6 reaches the point where it will become
the main protocol, so why not think about all the ways to get there as
soon as possible.
I am looking for anyone who rejects this policy, to provide a *statistic
trend *for the period of time allocations will still be possible from
the 185/8 for new LIR's, while the IANA blocks be reallocated to
existing *small* LIR's.
Also a realistic forecast for new LIR's number in the upcoming 1-2-3
years, would be very nice to see and to correlate with my previous
statement. As I have told before my personal opinion is that the new LIR
number will slowly decrease comparative to 2014/2015.
With regards,
Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 17:09, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 14:33, Adrian Pitulac <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
It depends on your view. The Akamai stats at
http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ suggest 2% increase over the same
period, and linear growth that has flattened out a little.
I suspect you mean slide 37 of
https://ripe71.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/56-RIPE71-bucharest-v6.pdf,
which shows linear/slowing growth over that period, from a high starting
point. I don’t think that slide supports your argument at all, and in any event
any significant deployment takes time, you can’t just magic it up when an event
happens.
And regardless of 2% or 5%, that growth is a mix of residential operators like
Comcast, who were deploying anyway during that period, and the mobile operators
(T-Mobile, ATT, VeriZon, etc), who were *already* going v6-only to the handsets
with NAT64/464XLAT for legacy v4. The US is now at around 25% overall,
according to Google, or 17% according to Akamai. Interesting how much those
numbers vary.
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.
As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new venture
v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing.
Tim
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
