Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Arnaud AMELINA amelnaud at
Fri Aug 4 15:49:31 UTC 2017

Hi Owen, Hi Community , see in lines

Le 31 juil. 2017 17:54, "Owen DeLong" <owen at> a écrit :

>>>> combined with the failure to implement IPv6
>>>> at a similar level because it has the same kind of cost-shifting
>>>>> But using your analogy, please help me understand how the two liken,
>>>>> who is dumping what on who, and which side is facing any costs as a
>>>>> result.
> As an example: There is a residential ISP in South Africa who has over
500 IPv4 prefixes. How many IPv6 prefixes do they announce? None. ZERO. You
are saying that this operator should be allowed as much more IPv4 space as
they can get, until it runs out, and tough luck to the new IPv6 operator
down the line who needs IPv4 to connect to the legacy Internet. I'm sorry,
I can not, and won't support the continued distribution of IPv4 resources
to existing operators to maintain the IPv4 status quo.

Not at all… If you want to write a policy that resolves this issue without
the other baggage and problems present in this policy, I would support a
clean policy designed to address that issue and make space available to
ANYONE specifically for IPv6 to IPv4 connectivity/transition. In fact, I
wrote such a policy in the ARIN region years ago and it is now NRPM section
4.10 in the ARIN region.

I don't really know how things work in ARIN region, but the proposal which
led to section 4.10 of ARIN NRPM was authored by Alain Durand.




RPD mailing list
RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list