Re: RIPE our of IPv4

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

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 () vt edu> 
To: "Mark Andrews" <marka () isc org> 
Cc: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron () heyaaron com>, "NANOG mailing list" <nanog () 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 () 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.