RIPE our of IPv4

Mon Nov 25 22:45:18 UTC 2019

Most eyeball networks (by organization count) don't have a /16 in the first place, much less one to give. 

Obviously something like 90% of the population is in the top 10 providers and the rest of the population is in the other several thousand providers. 

(Numbers are out of thin air, but illustrate the point.) 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu> 
To: "Mark Andrews" <marka at isc.org> 
Cc: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron at heyaaron.com>, "NANOG mailing list" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 3:47:37 PM 
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 

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: 
> > 
> > ��� I believe it���s Eyeball network���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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191125/b99dbfb2/attachment.html>