On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?
Because it is in the past. > That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and > why? Those that would like all allocations to be treated the same. > We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4 land. Just stop telling me how to heal. I like your new diet, I practice it myself, but for the moment it is far from allowing me to live. In order to survive I need extras that can only be found in limited quantities. And you want to explain me how you're doing me a favor by increasing the price, while people having stocks (and putting on me pressure that makes the new diet irrelevant) can happily live ever after ... ? With 2015-05 I tried to fix the issue, but number of people in the community were against, the reason being mainly "make v4 last as long as possible". For me that reason makes it clear that IPv4 address space is meant to be the new equivalent of gold. Today, IPv6 is only a distraction, in the next years a "possible but unlikely option" and *AN* alternative in the future. But it will not become *THE* solution before IPv4 availability goes to ZERO (0.000000, not 0.1 or 0.01 or even 0.001). Trying to explain me that on 14 Sept 2022 a new start-up (especially a content-related one) will legitimately need a /22 worth of provider-agnostic IPv4 space *ALONE* (i.e. IPv6 still as optional as today), for me it seems exaggerate. Same thing on 14 Sept 2027 (regardless of the allocation size) is totally unacceptable. Even today I find it hard to hear "save v4 for future entrants" with no incentive (or even obligation) to deploy v6. As for the market, today, mid-2016, the market doesn't have any explicit need for IPv6. On the contrary, the market *DOES* require IPv4 explicitly : no v4 = no business (mostly because "static public IPv4 address required"). Best case, very optimistic scenario, "not enough business". At least in my area and most of my market. I would be interested to hear the situation in other areas/markets : do a customer that is only give IPv6 stay with you for more than 1 year by using the service and never calling the support ? I have examples with IPv4-only (they ignore v6, some voluntarily, some not) customers. I also have customers that explicitly request IPv6 to be disabled (most likely because they don't know how to dot it themselves). IPv6 is only acceptable as long as it comes together with IPv4. But that doesn't meant that it will be used. So yes, I oppose this policy as I oppose by principle anything that: - changes the rules selectively, especially based on age (my most important no-go for 2016-03) - does it retroactively - tries to unbalance even more an already unbalanced market -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
