Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Hi Yuri, In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use it. (and the only backbone provider has no IPv6 to offer to ISPs). So some Iranian ISPs have to buy IPv4 from other LIRs mostly based in other countries (approx. 1milion IP per year) to be able to meet their network growth needs. (Iran has 80milion population while the total IPv4 allocations is around 10milion) I think that redistributing additional blocks from the last /8 should be based on some additional criteria and not every LIR should be entitled to receive it. (for example if the first /22 has been sold by the LIR, no additional block as the LIR has not a real need for that) Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market. I support the idea of letting them receive additional blocks from RIPE NCC directly for their own use. Regards, Arash Naderpour Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:55:36 +0300 From: Staff <office@ip4market.ru> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Message-ID: <5579CB98.2020505@ip4market.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Greetings! Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4. If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? Yuri
Hello, On 06/12/2015 10:34 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote:
In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use it.
Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market.
Honestly? Most developing countries are skipping IPv4 completely or as much as possible. If Iran has really banned IPv6 they deserve to pay themselves sick for IPv4. Furthermore, RIPE NCC does not have enough IPv4 addresses to give Iranians, even if we as a community wished for a special Iranian policy. -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail
Hi If you want to put up a national firewall then you shouldn't allow v6 until that v6 version firewall is ready. China on the other hand has it's v6 firewall ready and at this time difficult to overcome at massive size( for v4 vpn can solve the problem)
在 2015年6月12日，上午9:44，Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2015@ssd.axu.tm> 写道：
Hello,
On 06/12/2015 10:34 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use it.
Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market.
Honestly? Most developing countries are skipping IPv4 completely or as much as possible. If Iran has really banned IPv6 they deserve to pay themselves sick for IPv4. Furthermore, RIPE NCC does not have enough IPv4 addresses to give Iranians, even if we as a community wished for a special Iranian policy.
-- Aleksi Suhonen
() ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail
Hi Aleksi, Thanks for your email, Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are "skipping IPv4 completely"? I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of their developing stage. (no matter how hard community policies make it for them, when there is no IPv6 option they just can't use it). If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider their conditions too. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Aleksi Suhonen [mailto:ripe-ml-2015@ssd.axu.tm] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:44 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: Arash Naderpour Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Hello, On 06/12/2015 10:34 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote:
In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use it.
Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market.
Honestly? Most developing countries are skipping IPv4 completely or as much as possible. If Iran has really banned IPv6 they deserve to pay themselves sick for IPv4. Furthermore, RIPE NCC does not have enough IPv4 addresses to give Iranians, even if we as a community wished for a special Iranian policy. -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail
Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are "skipping IPv4 completely"?
i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should be using ipv6" religion.
I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of their developing stage.
yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't no more.
If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider their conditions too.
it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old discussions. it boiled down to o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new entrants at least run a NAT o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy phase. ah well. randy
Hi Randy, "ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of community and they just cannot get over it. That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are "skipping IPv4 completely"?
i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should be using ipv6" religion.
I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of their developing stage.
yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't no more.
If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider their conditions too.
it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old discussions. it boiled down to o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new entrants at least run a NAT o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy phase. ah well. randy
I see IPv4 and IPv6 like land in the real world, the remote land are very cheap and the centre land are very expensive, however unless there is enough incentives from the city planning, no body will move out of the city center because of high housing price/high rent, especially business. One thing I see in over past years is people in the tech community think while we built a new land, people will immediately go there simplify because there are more space, however, concentration effect does play an more important role in this game, and why, because IPv6 in technology wise, it does not bring significant business benefits other than more of them, so in business view, it is simply cheaper(not like CPU or web design language, the improvement over years are tremens). So actions like turn on IPv6 day will help promote future of the IPv6, increase the concentration rate of the users in IPv6, however, totally abundant IPv4 will take long time, the reason for that, the IPv4 is very cheap. How many IP address a small size e-commerce website need, /24 will be already a lot, 256 IP at today's market, most E-commerce are paying 2 USD per month for, so it is 500 USD a month in cost, in which, is really not cost a lot. And I believe the provider to the website will pay more than 72USD(3 year return) per address to buy IP address to serve this customer simply because they receive 24USD per year from these addresses. And if you think of real world rent, most shop in most city center, rent cost will almost be one third or half of their total revenue, no surprise that no business has real business incentive to move over to IPv6. if you consider the size of IPv6 only network today(in which practically is none, everyone still have IPv4 access, no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access network). I see IPv4 and IPv6 will co-exists for many years to come, the cost to use IP address has been surprising kept at real minimum for many many years, so no business will not provide IPv4 access.while more business providing IPv6 access might encourage more deployment of IPv6 in the end user, the age of the dual stack I believe will last my generation. For the reason that, cost of deploy dual stack compare to the risk of losing customer of lacking of IPv4 access, is really minimum. But no surprise to that, network won't break, business won't be affected, IP address end of day, is simply an globe rule of set of numbers to identify something, 32 bit or 128 bit, as long as you can reach someone, there is no worries there. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:
Hi Randy,
"ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of community and they just cannot get over it.
That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need.
I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions.
Regards,
Arash Naderpour
-----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are "skipping IPv4 completely"?
i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should be using ipv6" religion.
I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of their developing stage.
yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't no more.
If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider their conditions too.
it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old discussions. it boiled down to o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new entrants at least run a NAT o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it
it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy phase. ah well.
randy
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access only network" On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
I see IPv4 and IPv6 like land in the real world, the remote land are very cheap and the centre land are very expensive, however unless there is enough incentives from the city planning, no body will move out of the city center because of high housing price/high rent, especially business.
One thing I see in over past years is people in the tech community think while we built a new land, people will immediately go there simplify because there are more space, however, concentration effect does play an more important role in this game, and why, because IPv6 in technology wise, it does not bring significant business benefits other than more of them, so in business view, it is simply cheaper(not like CPU or web design language, the improvement over years are tremens).
So actions like turn on IPv6 day will help promote future of the IPv6, increase the concentration rate of the users in IPv6, however, totally abundant IPv4 will take long time, the reason for that, the IPv4 is very cheap.
How many IP address a small size e-commerce website need, /24 will be already a lot, 256 IP at today's market, most E-commerce are paying 2 USD per month for, so it is 500 USD a month in cost, in which, is really not cost a lot. And I believe the provider to the website will pay more than 72USD(3 year return) per address to buy IP address to serve this customer simply because they receive 24USD per year from these addresses. And if you think of real world rent, most shop in most city center, rent cost will almost be one third or half of their total revenue, no surprise that no business has real business incentive to move over to IPv6. if you consider the size of IPv6 only network today(in which practically is none, everyone still have IPv4 access, no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access network).
I see IPv4 and IPv6 will co-exists for many years to come, the cost to use IP address has been surprising kept at real minimum for many many years, so no business will not provide IPv4 access.while more business providing IPv6 access might encourage more deployment of IPv6 in the end user, the age of the dual stack I believe will last my generation. For the reason that, cost of deploy dual stack compare to the risk of losing customer of lacking of IPv4 access, is really minimum.
But no surprise to that, network won't break, business won't be affected, IP address end of day, is simply an globe rule of set of numbers to identify something, 32 bit or 128 bit, as long as you can reach someone, there is no worries there.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:
Hi Randy,
"ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of community and they just cannot get over it.
That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need.
I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions.
Regards,
Arash Naderpour
-----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are "skipping IPv4 completely"?
i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should be using ipv6" religion.
I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of their developing stage.
yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't no more.
If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider their conditions too.
it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old discussions. it boiled down to o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new entrants at least run a NAT o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it
it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy phase. ah well.
randy
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access only network"
i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this randy
Hi I don't know what you mean by cernet2. Cernet in China does provide IPv4 access as well. But they charge IPv4 traffic and do not charge IPv6 traffic, so student use IPv6 to download movies(in which makes high traffic volume). On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access only network"
i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this
randy
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Just checked around a bit, confirmed with few of my classmates in China as well. http://www.edu.cn/info/cernet2_lpv6/ It's still not IPv6 access only network, it is just dual stack at end user level. It's upgrade IPv6 part of the cernet while every user still can access IPv4. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Hi
I don't know what you mean by cernet2.
Cernet in China does provide IPv4 access as well.
But they charge IPv4 traffic and do not charge IPv6 traffic, so student use IPv6 to download movies(in which makes high traffic volume).
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access only network"
i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this
randy
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
"ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point of view, but it does not for everyone in the community.
there is no more. that is a fact.
What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of community and they just cannot get over it.
what you are saying is that the need continues. i agree. but, as there is no more, the need will not be fulfilled.
That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need.
the ipv4 market is not allocating more ip space, it is shuffling the existing space. most folk have gotten over their denial that this is, and will continue to be, the reality.
I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions.
yes, the new conditions are that we are acually in the last days. 32 bits is 32 bits and that's not gonna change. and C is gonna limit latency. randy
Randy, I think the following bit, while true for final-/8 RIR pools, in the large scheme is incorrect: On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 20:31 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
but, as there is no more, the need will not be fulfilled.
I'd say: Seller meets buyer at a mutually agreed upon transaction price. The relative need two parties experience on one set of address space is most easily expressed in monetary terms. The role of the RIRs going forward in depleted-IPv4-land is to carry the public ledger. However, any business plan relying on margin on transaction fees for supply from RIR final-/8 is extremely shortsighted and the community shouldn't give any concern for it since it is stupid in its limited horizon and shortsightedness. (One of the reasons I'd just like this to be all over now is so we can skip this phase of destructive denial.) /M
participants (6)
-
Aleksi Suhonen -
Arash Naderpour -
h.lu＠anytimechinese.com -
Lu Heng
-
Martin Millnert -
Randy Bush