RIPE our of IPv4

Mon Nov 25 21:47:37 UTC 2019

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry at interhost.net> wrote:
> >
> > ï»¿ I believe itâ€™s Eyeball networkâ€™s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.

> It requires both sides to move to IPv6.  Why should the cost of maintaining
> working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks?   That is what is
> mostly happening today with CGN.

I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
organizations deploying dual-stack, and eyeball networks can more easily
move a /16 or even bigger to mostly IPv6 and a small CGNAT address space
than content providers can free up IPv4 addresses during the time that dual
stack is still needed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191125/057d5af8/attachment.sig>