Most eyeball networks (by organization count) don't have a /16 in the first place, much less one to give.
Obviously something like 90% of the population is in the top 10 providers and the rest of the population is in the other several thousand providers. (Numbers are out of thin air, but illustrate the point.) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> To: "Mark Andrews" <ma...@isc.org> Cc: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aa...@heyaaron.com>, "NANOG mailing list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 3:47:37 PM Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmi...@interhost.net> wrote: > > > > ��� I believe it���s Eyeball network���s 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.
