[rpd] IPV4 inter-RIR Legacy Resources Transfer.

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:05 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Mark,
>  
> One more *very relevant* detail to add.
>  
> The *only* way to deploy IPv6 now is IPv6-only with IPv4-as-a-Service.
>  

This isn’t entirely true… This is, however, the most efficient way to provide IPv4 services to your customers if you are building an IPv6 network.

> For that you need to have new pools of IPv4 addresses (the size of them depend on many factors, such as the design of your network, how big is it, etc.).

Only if you need connectivity to the IPv4 legacy internet.
 
> Also government and enterprise networks may need to have small IPv4 pools to be able to offer “IPv6-only”.

These are the same as any other end-users.
 
> All this is not easy to explain in an email, but please, trust me. I’ve been working on that since 1999. I hope you valuate my experience.
>  
> If you don’t have those IPv4 pools, sufficient for every actual ISP, new ISP, actual company, new company, you will *not* be able to:
> Connect correctly to a global Internet
> Be able to deploy IPv6
>  

1. is not true… You can connect just fine to the global IPv6 internet. You only need IPv4 addresses if you intend to connect to the legacy IPv4 internet.

2. There is no dependency on IPv4 pools in order to deploy IPv6. They are only needed if you need to talk to legacy IPv4 networks.


> Furthermore, you will be forced to invest in Carrier Grade NAT boxes (CGN), in a scale that nobody did until now in the rest of the world, in a scale that breaks everthing.

How is it that you think CGN boxes can work without IPv4 addresses? You need the same IPv4 here as with the other alternatives with IPv4 as a service on IPv6.

CGN isn’t an alternative that uses fewer IPv4 addresses.


Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190618/33bcb72b/attachment.html>