[lacnog] IPv6 Transitional Uncertainties

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Caríssimos/as,

Sorry to be incisive, being a sort of outsider regarding "machine-room
knowledge" of many details of the issue.

Taking some large numbers: Latin America for example, with 100 million
households, in which all countries' governnments in one way or another
are promising universal broadband for 2014, both fixed and via mobile,
starting from a current situation in which this means triplicating, even
sextuplicating real IP connections. Are you sure that by 2014 we will
have such a full IPv6 deployment so that in this expansion we can simply
forget about IPv4 scarcity?

I see a situation in which every household will probably need two, three
real IPv4 IPs each (3G/LTE smartphones, ADSL etc) with very little
possibility of reuse since most will be permanent connections, unless in
less than three years IPv6 will be fully deployed throughtout the
Internet. Brazil and Argentina alone will probably need about 30-40
million new IPv4 addresses by 2014 -- Brazil alone has more than 50
million households and currently only about 12-13 million are on the
"broadband grid" -- not to speak of the expanding institutional IP needs
for business, schools etc. Or are we satisfied with the "NATting" of the
Internet Huston describes to force real IP sharing by the end user?

Maybe I am seeing ghosts where there are not, but I am far from thinking
we should not worry. And, yes, I continue to think RIRs are too lame
about it. Please do convince me I am absolutely wrong!

--c.a.

On 09/14/2011 12:34 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 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,