nanog mailing list archives
IPv6? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
From: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:54:52 -0500
Hi, Saku:1) " ...we need to figure out why we are in this dual-stack mess, which was never intended, and how to get out of it. ... ":
After our team worked out the EzIP scheme and then classified by Vint Cerf as an overlay network, more than a couple of the considerations that you outlined could be left alone for them to run their own courses. This is because the EzIP approach resolved the size limitation of the CG-NAT which appears (from my limited knowledge) to be the primary current IPv4 handicap with respect to IPv6. EzIP can be configured in parallel to and operates in arm's length with the existing Internet, so that it can grow independent of the latter.
Regards, Abe (2024-01-11 23:54) On 2024-01-11 06:03, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 12:57, Christopher Hawker<chris () thesysadmin au> wrote:Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved. Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels.Just enough time for us to retire comfortably and let some other fool fix the mess we built? We don't need to extend IPv4, we need to figure out why we are in this dual-stack mess, which was never intended, and how to get out of it. We've created this stupid anti-competitive IPv4 market and as far as I can foresee, we will never organically stop using IPv4. We've added CAPEX and OPEX costs and a lot of useless work, for no other reason, but our failure to provide a reasonable solution going from IPv4 to IPv6. I can't come up with a less stupid way to fix this, than major players commonly signing a pledge to drop IPv4 in their edge at 2040-01-01, or some such. To finally create an incentive and date when you need to get your IPv6 affairs in order, and to fix the IPv4 antitrust issue. Only reason people need IPv4 to offer service is because people offering connectivity have no incentive to offer IPv6. In fact if you've done any IPv6 at all, you're wasting money and acting against the best interest of your shareholders, because there is no good reason to spend time and money on IPv6, but there should be.
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
Current thread:
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block, (continued)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Tom Beecher (Jan 10)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Nick Hilliard (Jan 10)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Michael Butler via NANOG (Jan 10)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Tom Beecher (Jan 10)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Dave Taht (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Nick Hilliard (Jan 11)
- Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Saku Ytti (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Benny Lyne Amorsen (Jan 11)
- IPv6? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Randy Bush (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Giorgio Bonfiglio via NANOG (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Emanuele Balla (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Randy Bush (Jan 12)
- Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 12)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Randy Bush (Jan 12)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Eric Parsonage (Jan 12)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Tom Beecher (Jan 12)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Randy Bush (Jan 12)
- Vint Cerf Re: Backward Compatibility Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 13)