RIPE our of IPv4

Tue Nov 26 09:36:43 UTC 2019

On 2019-11-25 1:47 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> 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

Right, which is why we started warning folks about this issue 10+ years 
ago, when IPv4 was still plentiful and cheap.

But even content networks have NAT options, and while most of them are 
not pretty, the options become more limited every day that passes.

I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or, 
folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point 
rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.

Doug