On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Hi.
Hi,
<co-author hat on>
I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to
IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically.
I'm really not sure about that. It won't solve any new entrant's case.
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 3rd party
networks -- they all still need IPv4 addresses.
I don't really understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the
dead patient by means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and
others.
Please note 2017-03 is not approved yet.
Please also note that the NCC is not authoring this proposal.
There was a presentation about this issue in Budapest at RIPE 72. Randy
talked about building a new proposal then, and it took some months to put
it together. :-)
It seems the NCC wants to earn money due to the IPs become more
expensive.
I don't really think this is the case. The main goal here is to preserve a
minimal chunk of space for new entrants. And today, a /24 is the "minimal
acceptable" size for that.
So I oppose this proposal.
Noted.
Regards,
Carlos Friaças
22 ???2017 ?.7:50 ???????????? "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]> ???????:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote:
At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected
expiry of the free pool in RIPE's hands?
There?s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/.
There is also:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on
185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go?
To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any
need to change anything.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
