Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

Good morning Arash, * "Arash Naderpour" > My question is that is this working group the right place to discuss > about the 240/3 or it should be done in higher level like between > RIRs or IANA? RIPE AP-WG is not the right place to begin this process, the IETF is. The

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

>Well, using 240/3 isn't something that realistic. It is a lot easier to deply IPv6 than to get 240/3 working for any significant amount of users. Some may prefer easier ways (which is not that much easy to others) and some may not, My question is that is this working group the right place to

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, NTX NOC wrote: Not correct. My opinion is that all IPs space should be completely free for all members. It's like letters in the alphabet. You should not pay for letters, you should not pay for your unique name+surname (symbols that allow to identify you like IP address

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

You have already been pointed at: https://version6.ru/isp. My, perhaps too optimistic prognosis, is that we'll have IPv6 as a mainstream IP protocol by 2018. The figures of the current growth make me believe in this. On 06/13/16 20:04, NTX NOC wrote: Agree, Almost in Russia, very big

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

When a resource is scarce, either you define a high-enough price (GSM frequencies for instance) or you enforce a policy on how it's used. The issue is that even if you free 2 or 3 /8 from 240/4 or DoD, that's still a scarce resource, given the current growth and the forthcoming IoT invasion.

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

Not correct. My opinion is that all IPs space should be completely free for all members. It's like letters in the alphabet. You should not pay for letters, you should not pay for your unique name+surname (symbols that allow to identify you like IP address numbers). So to allow progress to come in

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

Agree, Almost in Russia, very big country with a lot of ISPs - I can't find any big home ISP who gives IPv6 by default. Most of ISPs get there Ipv6 blocks and play with it. But it's not so good for customers. ISPs prefer still to get IPv4 blocks in additional to the space they have but not to

Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space

Hi Arash, > As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159 > belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled by > government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is simply no > IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dear Aled, dear all, On 13/06/2016 17:29, Aled Morris wrote: > On 13 June 2016 at 16:15, Sylvain Vallerot > wrote: >> I agree with this : remaining IPs are not intended to be

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On 13 June 2016 at 16:15, Sylvain Vallerot wrote: > I agree with this : remaining IPs are not intended to be used as we used > to. > > But they are still meant to be distributed to end users, aren't they ? > RIPE-649 "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

Arash Naderpour wrote: > That was just an example to let community knows that it is not only > technical difficulties preventing some areas sticking to IPv4, > There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are > really interested) with similar or other type of non-technical >

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:41:21PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote: > There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are really > interested) with similar or other type of non-technical limitations. I am. In some cases ties exist to actually start working on these

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Arash Naderpour wrote: Hi Nick, That was just an example to let community knows that it is not only technical difficulties preventing some areas sticking to IPv4, There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are really interested) with similar or

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

Hi Nick, That was just an example to let community knows that it is not only technical difficulties preventing some areas sticking to IPv4, There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are really interested) with similar or other type of non-technical limitations. RIPE

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016, at 02:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I don’t think the regulator is forbidding using a 6in4 tunnel because LI > regulation, otherwise, they will not allow any kind of VPN, etc? I don't think they do. But chasing 100 000 users running VPNs is not the same thing as chasing

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016, at 02:31, Sergey wrote: > What's the problem with using it and deploying IPv6 on your own network? My understanding is that his problem is "going to jail" if he does so.

Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016, at 23:22, David Conrad wrote: > Radu-Adrian, > > On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: > > Unless you manage to bring in money by using IPv6 and *NOT* IPv4, it > > remains either a "submarine project" or an explicit