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

[Tore Anderson]

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 process would go something like this:

You submit a draft to the IETF to direct IANA to do something with with
240/3, e.g., reclassify it as regular unicast IPv4 address space that
may be distributed to the RIRs. You'll then need to gain consensus for
your draft and have it published as an RFC.

The /3 would then within six months be split up into five equal parts
and be distributed to each RIR over a period of a few years. ~6.4 /8s
per RIR, that is. The initial and biggest IANA->RIR trance would happen
no later than six months after your RFC was published. (If you're not
happy with that you'd need to seek global consensus between the five RIR
communities to change the «Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4
Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA» policy.)

The RIPE NCC would add any address space received from the IANA in this
manner to the so-called «last /8» pool. So assuming you've already
received your final /22 under the current policy but want one or more
additional allocations from 240/3, you'll at this point need to return
to the RIPE AP-WG with a proposal to change the so-called «last /8»
policy into something else that would facilitate that.

Assuming you manage all of the above, all that remains in order to make
240/3 usable on the public Internet is to convince all the operating
system/device/router vendors in the world to develop and release
software/firmware updates to make 240/3 usable, and then of course to
convince every network operator and end-user on the Internet to
download and install these patches. Devices/software no longer being
supported by the manufacturer would probably need to be replaced
outright.

If by some miracle you would be able to pull it all off, keep in mind
that the ~107M addresses gained by the RIPE NCC would all be used up
within two years if we return to the pre-depletion allocation policy
and consumption rate. Ask yourself: «then what?»

Maybe you can now see why folks are telling you that this would be a
colossal waste of time and that your efforts would be much better spent
on IPv6. With IPv6, the process is already underway and most of the
above steps have already been completed, and at the end of that process
we're actually covered for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.

Tore

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

[Arash Naderpour]

>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 discuss about
the 240/3 or it should be done in higher level like between RIRs or IANA?

Regards,

Arash

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

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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 numbers).

So to allow progress to come in we need to use abilities, that we have,
reasonably. And here I asked about reserved IPv4 space.

I am here in this discussions because we try to help people to get IP
space easy and faster. And I am show here that there a lot of space that
could be used.


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.


We have run out of "letters" to use. The answer to the problem with "we've 
run out of letters" is to deploy IPv6. It's unfortunate that ISPs in your 
market aren't interested in Ipv6 deployment, but it's the only answer to 
your question.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

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

[Sergey]

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 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 switch to IPv6.

IPv6 will grow very slow in additional with IPv4.
So those protocols will live together for long-long time and we need to
spend some time for IPv4 as well.


Yuri

On 12.06.2016 18:30, Arash Naderpour wrote:

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 service
providers.

  


There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier
and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet.  there is also no IXP
in the country.

  


As I said it is not about the difficulty of deploying IPv6, when it is
not lawful and is not available to ISPs they have to stick with IPv4.
Please refer to ripe ncc lab report and see some IPv4 import figures
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/developments-in-ipv4-transfers

  


Arash

P.S last month they started advertising of the IPv6 blocks but no plan
to provide a service to ISPs as yet.

  


*From:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] *On
Behalf Of *Sergey
*Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 1:10 AM
*To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net
*Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:
IPv4 reserved space

  


Global carriers provide that connectivity. What's the problem?

On 06/12/16 18:08, Arash Naderpour wrote:

 I was not talking about a global carrier and if they can provide
 IPv6 or not, It was about availability and possibilities to have
 IPv6 connectivity everywhere. There are two different subject.

  


 Arash

  


 *From:*Dominik Nowacki [mailto:domi...@clouvider.co.uk]
 *Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 12:42 AM
 *To:* Arash Naderpour 
 
 *Cc:* Alexander Koeppe 
 ; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
 
 *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
 Re: IPv4 reserved space

  


 Not available ?

  


 Please name a global carrier that does not support IPv6.

 With Kind Regards,

 Dominik Nowacki
  
 Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and

 Wales. Registered number: 08750969 . Registered
 office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please
 note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also
 the content of email for the purposes of security and staff
 training. This message contains confidential information and is
 intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you
 are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or
 copy this e-mail. Please notify ab...@clouvider.net
  of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if
 you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from
 your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure
 or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
 destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider
 Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability
 for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
 arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is
 required please request a hard-copy version.


 On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:40, Arash Naderpour > wrote:

 And I don't understand why some people think that everyone can
 deploy IPv6,
 it is simply not available everywhere.
 It is not about difficulty, it is about possibility.

 Regards,

 Arash


 -Original Message-
 From: address-policy-wg
 [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
 Behalf Of Alexander Koeppe
 Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 12:09 AM
 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net 
 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
 Re: IPv4
 reserved space

 I don't understand how much time and energy is being put into
 the discussion
 about keeping vintage IP 

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

[David Ponzone]

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.

David Ponzone



> Le 13 juin 2016 à 19:09, NTX NOC  a écrit :
> 
> 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 we need to use abilities, that we have,
> reasonably. And here I asked about reserved IPv4 space.
> 
> I am here in this discussions because we try to help people to get IP
> space easy and faster. And I am show here that there a lot of space that
> could be used.
> 
> Yuri
> 
>> On 11.06.2016 22:33, Sergey wrote:
>> Agree with Mikael. This is not a provocative question, but are NTX so
>> worried about this proposal because it would affect their businesses
>> selling and leasing IPv4 space? Their webpage mentions it at the top.
>> 
>> The IP addresses aren't here to sell them. They're to be routed and
>> used. This is just a tool. The IPv6 deployment is the only solution.
> 
> 
> 
> ***
> Le service MailSecure d'IPeva confirme l'absence de virus et de spam dans ce 
> message.
> ***
> 
> 

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

[NTX NOC]

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 we need to use abilities, that we have,
reasonably. And here I asked about reserved IPv4 space.

I am here in this discussions because we try to help people to get IP
space easy and faster. And I am show here that there a lot of space that
could be used.

Yuri

On 11.06.2016 22:33, Sergey wrote:
> Agree with Mikael. This is not a provocative question, but are NTX so
> worried about this proposal because it would affect their businesses
> selling and leasing IPv4 space? Their webpage mentions it at the top.
> 
> The IP addresses aren't here to sell them. They're to be routed and
> used. This is just a tool. The IPv6 deployment is the only solution.

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

[NTX NOC]

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 switch to IPv6.

IPv6 will grow very slow in additional with IPv4.
So those protocols will live together for long-long time and we need to
spend some time for IPv4 as well.


Yuri

On 12.06.2016 18:30, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> 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 service
> providers.
> 
>  
> 
> There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier
> and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet.  there is also no IXP
> in the country.
> 
>  
> 
> As I said it is not about the difficulty of deploying IPv6, when it is
> not lawful and is not available to ISPs they have to stick with IPv4.
> Please refer to ripe ncc lab report and see some IPv4 import figures
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/developments-in-ipv4-transfers
> 
>  
> 
> Arash
> 
> P.S last month they started advertising of the IPv6 blocks but no plan
> to provide a service to ISPs as yet.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Sergey
> *Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 1:10 AM
> *To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:
> IPv4 reserved space
> 
>  
> 
> Global carriers provide that connectivity. What's the problem?
> 
> On 06/12/16 18:08, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> 
> I was not talking about a global carrier and if they can provide
> IPv6 or not, It was about availability and possibilities to have
> IPv6 connectivity everywhere. There are two different subject.
> 
>  
> 
> Arash
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Dominik Nowacki [mailto:domi...@clouvider.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 12:42 AM
> *To:* Arash Naderpour 
> 
> *Cc:* Alexander Koeppe 
> ; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
> Re: IPv4 reserved space
> 
>  
> 
> Not available ?
> 
>  
> 
> Please name a global carrier that does not support IPv6.
> 
> With Kind Regards, 
> 
> Dominik Nowacki 
>  
> Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and
> Wales. Registered number: 08750969 . Registered
> office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please
> note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also
> the content of email for the purposes of security and staff
> training. This message contains confidential information and is
> intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you
> are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or
> copy this e-mail. Please notify ab...@clouvider.net
>  of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if
> you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from
> your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure
> or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider
> Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability
> for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
> arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is
> required please request a hard-copy version. 
> 
> 
> On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:40, Arash Naderpour  > wrote:
> 
> And I don't understand why some people think that everyone can
> deploy IPv6,
> it is simply not available everywhere.  
> It is not about difficulty, it is about possibility.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Arash
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: address-policy-wg
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of Alexander Koeppe
> Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 12:09 AM
> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net 
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
> Re: IPv4
> reserved space
> 
> I don't understand how much time and energy is being put into
> the discussion
> about keeping vintage IP alive.
> This time and energy would be better off spent in just deploying v6.
> 

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

[Sander Steffann]

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 service providers.

If your government is making your work impossible there is little the rest of 
the world can do about it.

The world is out of free IPv4 space. The space that is reserved is for new 
entrants that need a tiny bit to connect to the old IPv4-only world. The days 
of running networks on only IPv4 are over. Everybody needs more addresses, and 
IPv6 is the only protocol that can provide them, so everybody needs to move. 
Including your government.

I am sorry. I understand that your personal/business situation sucks in regard 
to this, but your government is the only one who can fix this :(

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Sylvain Vallerot]

-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 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 for the RIPE NCC 
> Service Region"
> Section 5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs
> 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation. 
> ...
> 
> It doesn't say who these assignments are to, they could be to the LIR
> itself for their own use (as it will be in the case of end-users who
> have become LIRs purely to obtain some "psuedo-PI" address space.)

LIRs being (quite likely) End Users, this is fine.

But we definitely cannot assume that all End Users are LIRs,
nor make a policy take it for granted.

Put in another words we cannot have a policy say that an End User
needs to be a LIR to have a chance to get access to the ressource.

Allowing future End Users to have a tiny bit of IPv4 to bootstrap
means allowing *End Users*, not just those that are LIRs. Right ?

I would appreciate a confirmation from the "sitting-ones" that my 
understanding of the spirit of the last /8 policy is correct on
this point because I sometimes doubt it when reading things like 
proposal 2013-03.

Best regards,
Sylvain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlde1AMACgkQJBGsD8mtnRHH4gD/duowiNMLW8a1E1SRuYj3UgBK
QczJw7sdCw4bGICrmvEA/AjXyqIkX0xBBxk91zTgbIbVvqsVlEaPBZ/F9bygbaki
=ZT3L
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

[Aled Morris]

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 for the RIPE NCC
Service Region"

Section 5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs
...
3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.
...


It doesn't say who these assignments are to, they could be to the LIR
itself for their own use (as it will be in the case of end-users who have
become LIRs purely to obtain some "psuedo-PI" address space.)

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

[Nick Hilliard]

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
> limitations.
> 
> RIPE Community does not belongs just to the ones who have possibility
> to deploy IPv6, (even if it is not the community responsibility to
> work around the damages some governments are causing)

Arash,

what do you propose as a solution then?

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

[Gert Doering]

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 limitations.

(And it helps understand the environment we all have to operate in)

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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 other type of non-technical limitations.


RIPE Community does not belongs just to the ones who have possibility to 
deploy IPv6, (even if it is not the community responsibility to work 
around the damages some governments are causing)


Sure. There are lots of governments implementing all kinds of policies 
that make things worse for the general population in that country. 
Unfortunately, there is nothing RIPE can do to help these countries and 
their goverments, because RIPE doesn't have huge blocks of addresses to 
give out.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

[Arash Naderpour]

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 Community does not belongs just to the ones who have possibility to deploy 
IPv6, (even if it is not the community responsibility to work around the 
damages some governments are causing)

Regards,

Arash




-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org] 
Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 8:47 PM
To: Arash Naderpour 
Cc: 'Jim Reid' ; 'RIPE Address Policy WG List' 

Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

Arash Naderpour wrote:
> Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit 
> the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that 
> technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed 
> everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal 
> point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area.

Arash,

individually, people are probably sympathetic to the fact that companies and 
organisations in Iran are unable to deploy ipv6 for legal reasons.
However, if the iranian government / regulatory authorities insist on shooting 
themselves in the foot by prohibiting ipv6, it's not the responsibility of the 
RIPE community to work around the damage that this causes.  The IPv4 boat has 
sailed.  It's now time to move on.

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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 10 ISPs providing VPN-like services (by default)
to users.

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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 NO-GO.
> 
> In most businesses, there are two (non-exclusive) ways to get traction on
> doing pretty much anything:
> 
> 1) it generates more revenue.
> 2) it reduces costs.

David, 

For the moment neither of those applies to IPv6 deployments. Cost
reductions only applies to a limited number of players (those for which
a 25% reduction in v4 traffic  does end up in cost reduction, which
implies a certain size).

> more revenue -- the vast majority of customers do not and should not care
> about something as esoteric as the particular bit layouts at an

At some point, some categories of customers will have to start caring
about this if we want to move forward. Especially those that need "port
redirections to access the 2-3 devices in their office".

> one nice thing about markets is that they can provide explicit signals
> that help businesses decide. While there were free pools, the RIR system
> masked those signals, ironically making it harder for businesses to see

For the moment it's old big players that mask those signals :
"$incumbent does provide us a /28 (or a /27). If you can't do the same,
we will not buy the service from you".  As long as this is only one
random customer/prospect, you may be able to deal with it (let it stay
with the incumbent or provide it the block needed). When you have lots
of them, you have a problem. It's THEM that have to start caring about
IPv6.

> CGN are now a direct and obvious cost network service providers will need
> to account for and (likely) pass on to their customers.

When you go from ZERO to something (CGN-wise) you don't do any cost
reduction.

> migrating their internal infrastructure to IPv6 and selling a native
> IPv6/CGN'd IPv4 solution by default, having non-CGN'd IPv4 as an extra
> cost option (at least for new customers and increasingly, 

As explained above, as of today no IPv4 = no business. I am willing to
wait for the things to change, but in the meantime it's IPv6 that is
under life support (that I have to provide alone).

> old customers when their contracts renew).  

Today, this is more painful for them than switching to another provider
that does provide them with the needed IPv4 space. Those providers DO
exist.

> Now that most ISP network gear supports IPv6, the first part of that would
> make sense regardless of the regulatory environment.

This pretty much looks like "lab in production". usually it's not very
well seen.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs