[AfriNIC-rpd] Do we push for more V4 or advocate dual stack ??

[David Conrad]

Jordi,

On Aug 30, 2007, at 10:16 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> For running dual-stack, you don't need public IPv4 addresses.

I thought that at a bare minimum, you needed public IPv4 addresses  
for the NAT gateways and any public facing IPv4 services.

> Regarding the 2nd hand equipment. If you have equipment that don't  
> run IPv6,
> it should be so old (more than 5-6 years) that it is not reliable.  
> I really
> thing that's a mistake in any network, as you can't provide a good  
> service,
> so customers are unsatisfied and will move sooner or later to other
> providers.

In the ideal world, everyone would run with the latest gear.   
However, pragmatically speaking and as you might have seen on NANOG  
regarding discussions about MSFC2s and Cisco 7600 series routers, few  
of us live in the ideal world.

The reality is that there is old gear out there that can't be  
upgraded for one reason or another.  This will continue to be the  
case.  A prudent course of action would be for folks to take an  
inventory of their equipment and software systems and perform triage  
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage) to figure out what's hopeless,  
what can be fixed, and what is OK.  Once this is done, people can get  
an idea of what they're in store for when IPv4 address space is no  
longer available via traditional means.

> Moreover, those 2nd hand routers are also incapable, for example,  
> of using
> 224/8,

?  Do you mean 240/4?

Regards,
-drc