Search RPD Archives
[rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Tue Jul 16 20:05:34 UTC 2019
In message <DBBPR03MB54153FE810F4E83EE72C602FEECE0 at DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.o
utlook.com>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>I can think of several players actually – who could actually use that space
>today because of chronic CGN that’s in place that causes issues an expense.
>I don’t believe in naming entities without their permission – but your
>assumption that seems to be there – and if I misread that assumption I
>apologize - that there aren’t players who can use that kinda space on the
>continent – are incorrect
Well, I think everyone is aware that IPv4 is rather entirely finite.
It *is* going to run out someday. So what's the plan? What will the
big providers you speak of do then?
And if the time, trouble, and expense of CGNAT is too much for these
big providers to cope with, how well will smaller players be able to
cope with it, both financially and technically?
The resource *is* going to run out. It's just a question of when.
If Afrinic and other such organizations start adapting to that reality
sooner rather than later, will that really be such a bad thing? And
wouldn't it be prudent to keep in reserve more space that can be handed
out in, say, /24 blocks to the very smallest operators who may have
only very modest needs?
In my opinion, it is part and parcel of a vibrant Internet to have a mix
of large, medium, and small operators. I would hate to see the dominance
of large operators totallty crowding out the much smaller players.
More information about the RPD