North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: /8 end user assignment?
- From: Stephen J. Wilcox
- Date: Thu Aug 04 16:27:57 2005
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> So you ask folks to resort to hacks like NAT or force IPv6-only to their users
> when there is still a lack-of-content problem there? Can you show me your
> business plan draft for that? I'm curious. :-)
ok, thats not what i mean.. i am saying /8,/9 etc are not normal
> > If everyone in this category who could justify a /8 applied and
> > received them we might be in real trouble with our IPv4 space.
> We are already, but you seem to have your head firmly sticking in the
> sand, together with the content providers. :-)
i thought we had years to go according to some decent sources?
> It looks like IPv4 space really needs to "run out" before the residential
> access ISPs are really being forced to IPv6 and thus the content providers
> wake up too.
> BTW, Softbank got 2400:2000::/20.
> > I had said elsewhere this was unprecedented but was then pointed at
> > 220.127.116.11/9, 18.104.22.168/10 which is Comcast assigned in April. I'm surprised
> > none of these assignemtns have shown up on mailing lists..
> Why should they? Business as usual. :-)
> I hope that more ISPs stop doing NAT/RFC1918 and just request whatever they
how long does it take such an org to use 16 million IPs? based on the above
comment of '..need to run out' should they not maybe get 1million then come back
when they use it all to give some other folks a chance?
i'm not suggesting denying anyone the IPs they require but i am suggesting we
shouldnt steam ahead into exhaustion either