On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Roque,
On Jul 26, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Roque Gagliano wrote:
Two things, first big address consumption ISPs at the bigger RIR regions
will not base their business plans on the possibility of getting
addresses at LACNIC or AFRINIC, they will transit to IPv6.
No they won't. They will do whatever is necessary to obtain the IPv4 address space they need to continue business.
You appear to be assuming the primary reason people haven't migrated to IPv6 is because IPv4 is easily available. I do not believe this to be the case. People haven't migrated because:
a) customers don't want IPv6 (nor do they want IPv4 -- they want "the Web"/their pr0n, they don't care about the details).
b) migrating to IPv6 has real costs and because of (a), there are no additional revenues to cover that cost.
c) they _can't_ migrate because their equipment/software vendors don't yet support IPv6.
d) etc.
I agree, even if ISP do migrate to IPv6 there is not content there. So, we will have a double stack scenario for several years/decades.
Rearranging where the IPv4 free pool sits isn't going to help things all that much (although it might remove IANA as the target for lawyers, thanks! :-)). Large scale ISPs have the resources to set up offices in Latin America and Africa (and the resources, far more than those NICs do, to bury the NICs under paperwork to justify their requests). The folks who will lose are the smaller ISPs in the regions served by the larger NICs who lack those resources. The winners will be those with lots of IPv4 addresses.
In any scenarios with lack of access to IPv4 address smaller ISPs will be more affected, what if we just follow the current policy? What we are saying is lets just let everybody know how we are going to split the remaining of the central pool, so each region can understand how will they be affected. If the problem is the size of the last allocation (the number N), we could discuss that too.
Rgds,
-drc