Hi, On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:05:16AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Roger Jørgensen wrote:
Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter? Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes?
[x] all of the above, and more.
This question isn't relevant as it seems - lots of organisations have their needs and the RIPE NCC cannot and should not be arbiter of whose need is greatest or should take precedence.
Right - *but* it might be an interesting idea to turn around this discussion, away from haggling about the last scraps, into being able to give more useful guidance to LIRs. Like, - if you need to connect end-users, best practice is dual-stack with native IPv6 and CGNAT IPv4 (it stinks, but gets the job done while content is not IPv6 capable everyhwere) - if you run a data-center, run ipv6-only on the inside, and add Tore-style NAT46 to give each service a single public IPv4 address (insert pointer to RFC...) etc. While not truly *APWG* relevant, we could at least find out where the highest pain is, and then throw the ball over to the IPv6 WG to provide solutions :-) (totally IETF style). Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279