On 12/02/2016 09:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
No, seriously: use IPv6.
Most of my customers have IPv6. Sadly, the rest of the do not On 12/02/2016 11:59, Dominik Nowacki wrote:
This, or CG NAT. 1 village / end point / 1-2 IPs and CG NAT for the whole village + /56 IPv6 per household.
Is really CGNAT the RIPE-NCC solution for ipv4 exhaustion ? As a network engineer, and as a customer, CGNAT look like the worst solution. To answer the talk from Gert and other, about the holy mission of the RIPE, I agree with them, somehow. The RIPE is supposed to show justice, right ? Equality ? Good not evil ? Let's reap all useless IPv4. You want to sell IPv4 ? Obviously, you do not need that subnet. You do not announce that subnet over the internet ? Reaped. You want to transfert that subnet between two obviously not related compagny ? Reaped. As the Protector of the weaks, and to preserve viability of the newcommers, the RIPE-NCC *must not* allow people to make business on the back of the new. IPv4 are a resource of common interest, not a plot of land that can be sell to the richer. Do not you think ? -- Jack Kwaoo noc More details about KWAOO can be found at: https://as24904.kwaoo.net/