It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable >solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from >scratch only a few years ago.
Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 >adoption should be the first order of business.
Regards,
--ck
Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we’ll make it. Vice versa I’m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Da: Alessio Genova [mailto:alessiogenova1@gmail.com] Inviato: giovedì 29 ottobre 2015 14:02 A: 'address-policy-wg@ripe.net' Oggetto: address-policy-wg Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22.
From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer.
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards
On 10/29/2015 04:09 PM, Alessio Genova wrote:
It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable >solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from >scratch only a few years ago.
Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 >adoption should be the first order of business.
Regards,
--ck
Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4.
So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we’ll make it.
Vice versa I’m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
If some entity has more resources than needed, the entity is free to donate or sell those resources. If your problem is that you don't have enough IP addresses, explore the options and pick one. Changing the policy in order to take away resources from someone else sounds like what communists did decades ago in certain countries, by taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". In short, your problem is you don't have enough IPv4. There is IPv4 available on the free market. Go buy some. Problem solved.
On 29.10.2015 15:09, Alessio Genova wrote:
Vice versa I’m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
In case of stopping of CGN/NAT usage in incumbent's networks (which're holding large allocations), they *WILL* need them like you. Everyone needs them, but IPv4 address space is exhausted - that's reality and these days you *must* deploy NAT for end-users. I don't see any way of *avoiding* IP market. There will be always some ways to bypass policy. In worst case we'll have inaccurate registry as consequence of strict regulations avoiding transfers etc. This approach never worked. With regards, Daniel
Hi,
Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we’ll make it.
It's off-topic on this list, but just to give you a sample of the solutions you might deploy: Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146 464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6877 Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6333 Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7597 Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7599 An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6264 As you can see you are not the only one who needs to run a network with a shortage of IPv4 addresses, and solutions have been designed. There are some well-known examples that use these technologies. T-Mobile runs NAT64+464XLAT, UPC runs DS-Lite etc. Implementations are available on the market. Running an ISP on just IPv4 isn't possible anymore (basic math) so you'll have to learn to deal with that, just like everybody else. This mailing list is not the place to argue that point. It is clear that you need *some* IPv4 to be able to talk to others that only talk IPv4, which is why we have the final-/8 policy. Being able to run/expand a network (especially ISP networks) completely on public IPv4 without NAT and/or IPv6 has ended years ago, and no policy change is ever going to be able to change that. People that are still in denial and want to discuss how to run their networks on IPv4-only without having anything to do with IPv6 should start an IPv4 working group... Cheers, Sander
participants (4)
-
Alessio Genova -
Daniel Suchy -
Radu Gheorghiu -
Sander Steffann