Search RPD Archives
[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
aalain at trstech.net
Sat Apr 28 11:55:36 UTC 2018
> On 28 Apr 2018, at 01:48, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 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?
Oy yes “community”
The proposal got consensus and was recommended for ratification by BoD. There has been an appeal against co-chair decision. The Appeal committee decision to nullify the cochairs decision was baseless and has been challenged.
lets discuss this in Dakar.
>> 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
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD