mailing list archives
Re: Sad IPv4 story?
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:03:50 -0800
On 12/10/11 21:42 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 12/10/11 17:48 , Barry Shein wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific
area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their
business the way they would like?
This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and
unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could
elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc.
engineering solutions work with the constraints at hand.
The maximum ipv4 delegation size to be issued in apnic is a /22. one has
to assume that when it's gone it's gone.
given that constraint, I know how I'd build it.
Setting aside the sad story part for the moment, Would this be a good
subject for a BOF? Are there others who would be willing to participate
(residendential,transit or dc operators, and potentially vendors of
equipment or address transfer brokers).
I'd call it something like:
IPV4 runout - Doing more with less.
* IPV4 runout means new entrants will from the outset deploy techniques
the present operators consider undesirable.
* IPV6 should be appearing as part and parcel of new greenfield projects
I would think.
* On the vendor side CGN hardware is becoming a mature product space.
* Datacenter/ICP operators confront a similar set of problems both
supporting outgoing connections for large pools and incoming termination.
Re: Sad IPv4 story? John Curran (Dec 11)
Re: Sad IPv4 story? Don Gould (Dec 14)