<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>Most eyeball networks (by organization count) don't have a /16 in the first place, much less one to give.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>(Numbers are out of thin air, but illustrate the point.)<br><br><div><span name="x"></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br>Midwest-IX<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<span name="x"></span><br></div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu><br><b>To: </b>"Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org><br><b>Cc: </b>"Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron@heyaaron.com>, "NANOG mailing list" <nanog@nanog.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, November 25, 2019 3:47:37 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: RIPE our of IPv4<br><br>On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:<br>> > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > ��� I believe it���s Eyeball network���s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.<br><br>> It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining<br>> working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is<br>> mostly happening today with CGN.<br><br>I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new<br>organizations deploying dual-stack, and eyeball networks can more easily<br>move a /16 or even bigger to mostly IPv6 and a small CGNAT address space<br>than content providers can free up IPv4 addresses during the time that dual<br>stack is still needed.<br></div><br></div></div></body></html>