> P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot
> still use a v6 prefix ;)
interesting to see the whole trail.
Received: from psg.com ([2001:418:1::62])
by ran.psg.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.86_2)
[ generally good analysis ]
> The only use case RIPE NCC should assign new IPv4 address space for is
> for documented and needed v6 transitions services
do not make rules you can not measure or enforce. it weakens the
credibility of the rest of the structure.
randy
> In both scenarios relying on only IPv4 is insanity,
it's a business decision, and probably has many factors behind it. you
and i might think it unwise, but 'insanity' is a bit in the weeds.
> They are beyond help
not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and
other NATs
Hi,
am 23.09.2017 um 23:51 schrieb Willy MANGA:
> Hi Nick,
>
> Le 23/09/2017 à 21:41, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
>> Willy MANGA wrote:
>>> being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today ,
>>> these people really need IPv4 addresses ?
>> I'd be tempted to answer, except that you
Hi,
> So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand
> hurdles on european continent.
I think the hurdles are roughly the same in all regions. Relying on only IPv4
is insanity, and those that do so deserve no sympathy. But as you have
personally experienced IPv6 isn't
Willy MANGA wrote:
> So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand
> hurdles on european continent.
>
> I hope this time, it will be clearer :)
same reason as in africa: for most organisations it's too much work with
too little return.
Many humans will only react after a
Hi Nick,
Le 23/09/2017 à 21:41, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
> Willy MANGA wrote:
>> being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today ,
>> these people really need IPv4 addresses ?
>
> I'd be tempted to answer, except that you sent this email from an ipv4
> address. So, please
Willy MANGA wrote:
> being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today ,
> these people really need IPv4 addresses ?
I'd be tempted to answer, except that you sent this email from an ipv4
address. So, please deconfigure all IPv4 addresses from your computer,
re-send the email,
Hi,
Le 22/09/2017 à 08:47, address-policy-wg-requ...@ripe.net a écrit :
> [...]
> I'm working around IPv6 since 2001. Anna and Randy probably since before
> that. We have deployed IPv6. It didn't enable us to completely get rid of
> IPv4 within our networks. That also didn't solve any issue for
>> When do we distribute 240/4 among the RIRs as "really last /8s"?
>
> I made that question myself during an ICANN meeting (the only i
> attended) 10 years ago. The answer was something about operating
> systems' stacks. I wasn't fully convinced, but a large majority of
> internet plumbers seems
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
(...)
Where does this 'responsibily' end?
Don't know, but still feel we should try for the coming years.
When will be "well, the IPv4 well dried out back in 2011;
It didn't completely (even today), but the RIPE NCC service region
11 matches
Mail list logo
