I totally agree with Stefan and I support what he said here. ipv6 should be a must. On Jan 22, 2015 6:42 PM, "Stefan Schiele" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Elvis, > > Am 22.01.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Elvis Daniel Velea: > > [...] > > The proposed policy change will speed up the shortage of IPv4 space; and > therefore I still strongly oppose this proposal. > > I do not think there will be any difference in how much IPv4 will be > requested/allocated from the last /8 if the policy changes. I could easily > just use the LIR Portal 3-click request and get an IPv6 allocation if it's > one of the steps in requesting the IPv4 allocation. It does not mean that I > will actually use it or do anything with it. It's just a step in the > process of me getting the /22 I wanted. > > > The current policy actually had a positive effect on our company. The main > reason for us to sign up as an LIR was to get more IPv4 addresses; and > since we had to request an IPv6 allocation we wanted to have this set up > and running. If it had been possible to get that /22 without an IPv6 > address space we would probably still be using IPv4 only (the IPv4 address > space we currently have is large enough for our business for the > foreseeable future). > > Since this policy had a positive effect on IPv6 awareness for us I simply > deduce that it should have a positive effect for some other companies as > well. However, that's not just a guess, there is also statistical data > regarding this: > > Andrea Cima from RIPE NCC wrote on 11 December 2014: > > The RIPE NCC has started allocating /22s from the last /8 on 14 September > 2012. Since then 4190 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 1160 > are currently visible in the BGP routing tables. > > If we take into consideration the total number of IPv6 allocations made by > the RIPE NCC, 8398 IPv6 allocations have been made, out of which 4098 are > currently visible in the BGP routing tables. > > > That means that more than 27% of those IPv6 allocations are really used; > and that's a quite impressive figure. And I think we can conclude that the > current policy does have a positive effect on IPv6 deployment. In > comparison about 49% of all IPv6 allocations are visible in the BGP routing > table; and that makes that 27% even more impressive. > > > By the way, this proposal would increase prices on the IPv4 transfer > market (due to it speeding up the shortening of the free IPv4 address > space); and that is generally nothing that's good for the community, > either. > > I doubt it will have any effect. The RIPE NCC still has more than a /8 in > /22s (18.55 mil IP addresses) [1] and can allocate the /22s for at least > 5-10 years (my personal opinion is that it will never stop allocating the > /22s). > > > Any increase in IPv6 awareness is good for lessening the demand for IPv4 > addresses. In any free market prices are subject to "supply and demand"; > anything that reduces supply or increases demand will make prices go up. > > I agree with you that the RIPE NCC will not run out of IPv4 address space > during the next few years. Given the amount of 18.55 mil IP addresses this > is enough for about 18.000 new /22 allocations. Given the data Andrea Cima > from RIPE NCC posted on December 11th on this list 4190 IPv6 allocation > have been made between 14 September 2012 (the date when the RIPE NCC has > started allocation /22s from the last /8) until 11 December 2014 we could > estimate that that address space will be sufficient for the next 9-10 > years; and even if we take into account that the number of new LIRs will > increase in the future I still think that your 5-10 year range is a > reasonable estimate. > > Presumably you agree with me that increasing the IPv6 awareness will help > reducing the demand for IPv4 addresses; my personal opinion is that prices > for IPv4 addresses on the transfer market will still go up during the next > years due to the increasing shortage of available IPv4 address space; > however, if we are successful as a community in convincing new and existing > LIRs to deploy IPv6 that increase will be lower. > > I think that forcing anyone who wants to get address space from the last > IPv4 to get an IPv6 allocation first won't do any harm to anyone; even if a > LIR does not want to deploy IPv6 now they can simply put that allocation on > a shelf and deploy it later. And the impressive statistics from the RIPE > NCC show that the current policy text helps IPv6 deployment. > > Kind Regards, > Stefan > > > Regards, > Elvis > > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph > > Kind Regards, > > Stefan Schiele > > Am 22.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Gert Doering: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +0000, Daniel Davis wrote: > > Our comment on thIs proposal is: > We would not support this proposal to Remove the IPv6 Requirement for > Receiving Space from the Final /8. > This is because his policy encourages ripe members to start the process of > using ipv6 addresses, and that given the shortage of ipv4 space migration > is becoming increasingly important. > By changing this policy we believe this will give out the wrong signals to > the industry about ipv6 migration. > > This argument has been brought up before, and I consider it addressed > (by asking the RIPE NCC to send very clear signals regarding IPv6 > encouragements to future applicants, and also increasing their general > IPv6 outreach). > > Last Call is there to bring up arguments opposing the proposal that have > not been voiced and answered before - like, some completely new angle > hat has been overlooked. > > As always, consensus does not have to be unanimous if there is > sufficiently > strong support. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > > > > > > -- > <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer > > Email: [email protected] <[email protected]> > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. > > >
