[lacnog] IPv6 Transitional Uncertainties

Fernando Gont fernando en gont.com.ar
Mie Sep 14 00:34:17 BRT 2011


Raul,

Please find my comments in-line...

On 09/13/2011 11:07 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> It is not true that the other RIRs, as you said, are happy with the
> inequity in the allocations of IPv4 addresses. LACNIC has stated very
> clearly many times our position regarding legacy addresses, those
> addresses that were allocated before the existence of the RIRs. In
> fact I spoke about that in the last LACNIC meeting in Cancun in my
> report.

I was just about to mention your presentation at the past LACNIC meeting
in Cancun, but wasn't able to find the video of it in Youtube to provide
a pointer. Is it online somewhere?


> What is very important from Geoff's article is that we have to learn
> the lessons from APNIC region's experience. in our region we have a
> good stock of IPv4 addresses to support a smooth transition to IPv6,
> but if the Network operators don't take the necessary measures very
> soon, so in a couple of years we will be in the same situation than
> APNIC region is now.

FWIW, I'm personally planning to submit a policy to the "politicas"
mailing-list proposing that new IPv4 blocks are assigned
inversely-proportional to the number of IPv4 addresses that they
currently "own".

That means that those who are making more money (and are also likely to
be in the business for longer), are the ones that will have to stop
consuming IPv4 address from the pool, and focus on deploying v6.

That also means that there will be IPv4 addresses for new players.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando en gont.com.ar || fgont en acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1






Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG