Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net
Tue Nov 8 17:11:40 UTC 2016
On 7 November 2016 at 18:41, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Any technology which would need this “strategic reserve” is a technology
> which does not exist yet. From my perspective, the only thing such a
> provision can do is encourage such technologies to be developed with
> dependencies on IPv4. This is absolutely wrong-headed.
some future requirement which creates a demand for IPv4 addresses need not
have anything to do with technology.
Otherwise we should consider recalling the equivalent of 34.36 /8
unadvertised held in ARIN region and make them unusable -
and wouldn't need to have the majority of draft policies discussed in the
ARIN meeting about how to make IPv4 transfers easier.
We should be encouraging new technologies to be developed WITHOUT
> dependencies on IPv4 and with full IPv6 support from day 1.
Agreed and we shall. The IAB statement on this was posted in the community
list. They appreciate the need for dual-stack and time reviews take. We
have to remember that we are only talking of 1 /8 here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD