nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIPE our of IPv4
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks () vt edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:31:56 -0500
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stackI think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable and IPv4-capable.
And they're going to need v4 addresses to be v4-capable, aren't there? A new corporation that's trying to spin up dual-stack is going to need 2 address allocations, a v4 and a v6.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4, (continued)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Owen DeLong (Dec 01)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Matthew Kaufman (Dec 01)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Mark Andrews (Dec 01)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Brandon Martin (Dec 01)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Owen DeLong (Dec 02)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Matthew Kaufman (Dec 01)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Owen DeLong (Dec 02)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Owen DeLong (Dec 01)
- US Broadband IPv6 (Re: RIPE out of IPv4) Jared Mauch (Dec 02)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Mark Andrews (Dec 02)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Randy Bush (Dec 03)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Aled Morris via NANOG (Dec 04)
- Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Large Hadron Collider (Dec 05)
