Search RPD Archives
[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
owen at delong.com
Sat Apr 28 01:48:16 UTC 2018
There are a number of problems with this:
1. History shows that forcing people to accept IPv6 addresses in order to obtain
more IPv4 addresses doesn’t actually help deploy IPv6, it just makes a mess of
the registry and registry related statistics.
2. Please explain how one goes about determining equivalence between an IPv4 allocation/assignment
and an IPv6 allocation or assignment. Is a v6 /64 more like a v4 /32 or a v4 /24? Answer: it depends.
Is a /48 more like a /24 or something larger? Answer: it depends.
IPv4 and IPv6 are so very different in terms of address size and allocation boundaries that there
simply isn’t a good way to define equivalence. That’s a good thing, but it means that what you are
proposing simply doesn’t work very well (if at all).
Besides, can’t we just kill this proposal? How many times does the community need to reject it before the authors will recognize that it is not wanted?
> On Apr 27, 2018, at 16:10 , Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to add a clause under 5.4.5 allocation criteria whereby any member requesting for ipv4 addresses must also request for a quota of ipv6 as well. Therefore ipv4 addresses cannot be requested without requesting for an equivalent quota of ipv6 and further request can be made when deployment of the allocated ipv6 block has been ascertained. _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD