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

[rpd] Inter-RIR Resource

Ish Sookun ish.sookun at
Mon Dec 3 08:41:50 UTC 2018

Hi Andrew,

On 12/2/18 6:50 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:
> I would oppose any such clause – because there is absolutely zero
> indication that a clause like this has any effect anywhere in the world.

Most discussions on this list regarding IPv4 resources portray the

  - IPv4 is scarce
  - Transition to IPv6 should be encouraged

Almost in every other discussion people don't stop reminding that IPv4
is finite. Yet the IPv6 transition is mostly "talks" with little action.
This might keep going unless the criteria for requesting IPv4 resources
for growing networks includes a plan for IPv6.

This topic would not be suitable to discuss in the Inter-RIR thread but
it bounced back as IPv6 transition was reminded again by Jordi:

On 11/27/18 9:31 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> Also agree. There is an urgent need for a transition plan, and that
includes carefully considering an IPv6 addressing plan, among other things.

> Fact is – it is not the job of an RIR to tell people how to run their
> networks – it is the RIR’s job to evaluate if someone has a need for v4
> addresses and supply them if they do.  You cannot force people to
> transition to IPv6 – and if a network chooses not to do so for whatever
> reason – that is their choice, and in the end they will be penalized for
> it.

By setting a criteria to qualify for more IPv4 addresses from a
depleting pool does not appear like telling operators how to run their
networks. To me it sounds like: "Hey, we're running out of IPv4 and
we're not giving any now but if you need it for your IPv6 transition we
can allocate you some."


Ish Sookun

More information about the RPD mailing list