Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
noah at neo.co.tz
Tue Nov 8 18:44:21 UTC 2016
On 8 Nov 2016 21:10, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> We WOULD need to have. just few years later (sorry, details, whatever
> number), IPv4 is going to end. it is not a question of _if_ but a
> question of _when_.
Not so fast.
You forget that just like the IPv4 Internet, the IPv6 Internet will also
sponteneously developed. Nothing happens over night to so many fundamental
Look at the history of Internet development across the world in each
continent and what factors were at play per continent in fostering the
The small group of Internet Elites here in tend to undermine a lot of this
> And I think we all know examples of cases where people are unprepared
> and will be surprised - no matter whether it happens sooner or later.
I doubt any one will be suprised imho.
We had satellite for ages then the fiber optic came. We all embraced to new
advancement and upgraded quick yet satelites are still being used in remote
rural towns where the cable is hardly there.
> like this one:
> % Information related to '2001:43f8:1d0::/48'
> % No abuse contact registered for 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> inet6num: 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> netname: WACREN-v6
> frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1> show route table inet6.0 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1>
> route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp ipv6 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
> % Network not in table
> sorry to bring facts into this discussion.
I am sure wacren has their own reasons as to why some of that v6 is not
But lets not use that as the basis to prove a point.
What is more important at least imho is the policies under discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD