On 15 Apr 2016, at 14:33, Adrian Pitulac <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm talking about the statistics presented even at RIPE 71 in Bucharest last > year, where IPv6 capability in US grew 5% between 05.2015 and 11.2015.
It depends on your view. The Akamai stats at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ suggest 2% increase over the same period, and linear growth that has flattened out a little. I suspect you mean slide 37 of https://ripe71.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/56-RIPE71-bucharest-v6.pdf, which shows linear/slowing growth over that period, from a high starting point. I don’t think that slide supports your argument at all, and in any event any significant deployment takes time, you can’t just magic it up when an event happens. And regardless of 2% or 5%, that growth is a mix of residential operators like Comcast, who were deploying anyway during that period, and the mobile operators (T-Mobile, ATT, VeriZon, etc), who were *already* going v6-only to the handsets with NAT64/464XLAT for legacy v4. The US is now at around 25% overall, according to Google, or 17% according to Akamai. Interesting how much those numbers vary. > Coming back to the policy discussion, I don't see why keeping 185/8 for new > entrants wouldn't be a viable solution. It's the exact thing which was > intended when the last /8 policy was created. As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing. Tim > On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote: >>> On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, >>> resulted directly in IPV6 growth. >> Well, no, not if you look at >> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6 >> growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now). >> >> Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html >> >> What statistics are you referring to? >> >> The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we’ll “never” run out, >> but that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and >> some amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they’re on the very last fumes of >> v4 address space as they had no such policy. >> >>> Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is >>> IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 >>> pools then IPv6 will explode. >> The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But >> those take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from >> that. In the UK, Sky’s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project >> where, I believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than >> investing in bigger CGNATs. >> >>> Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR >>> number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this >>> generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. >>> I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. >>> So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. >> The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several >> years, and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 - >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre - so the help on IPv6 has >> been there for the taking... >> >> Tim >> >>> With regards, >>> Adrian Pitulac >>> >>> >>> On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote: >>>>> The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting >>>>> IPv6" >>>>> which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against >>>>> proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged >>>>> against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. >>>>> It >>>>> simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. >>>> Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* >>>> by this policy, but actually *advantaged*. >>>> >>>> If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small >>>> startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can >>>> get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away >>>> space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time? >>>> >>>> Gert Doering >>>> -- APWG chair >>> >>> > >
