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
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