Dear all,
I started as an ISP early 2015 and I still consider myself a new
entrant. In the last 2 years I heard about a couple of time "no more
IPv4 policies let's go over and think how to fix/help IPv6 rate
adoption" but today we are still here complaining what's the best way to
last longer with the agony.
For Ipv6 RIPE NCC is doing its best with training and is really
appreciated and I learned here that we tend to not mix IPv4/6 policies
but I really expected incentives from the cummunity not obstacles. The
"IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" was abandoned
23/10/2014 by the adoption of 2014-04 proposal while this 2017-03
proposal aims to last as longer as possible with IPv4. Looks to me that
we are trying to save future generation from ice melting saving oil
tanks instead of working on research and incentives to clean energies.
I don't see even any reason to save more address space than the current
policies does 'casue we have "trasfert policies" for almost any kind of
IP resource and if there are some restrictions on new allocation there
are more flexible for legacy space. Today you can simply choose to go
RIPE or market as your feeling to get IPv4/6 if needed.
My small router deals today with more than 2.5 million routes (2 full
routing tables and some IX) and it really takes time to backup and even
routing performance are affected by volume of routes. I think we should
propote IPv6 for route aggregation ability.
I see this policy as:
- an obstacle to IPv6
- a clear side effect of market price rise on IPv4
- a disincentive to route aggregation
That's why I oppose this policy
kind regards
Riccardo
--
Riccardo Gori
