Hi, On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 07:53:08PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote:
What I want to know is if there is anyone who only have a /22 and are ok with not recieving (even if there are) more allocations (unknow prefix) only for if in 10-15 years IPv6 isnt globally deployed.
You can assume that most receivers of a /22 will not be happy. But most other receivers of IPv4 address space are not happy either - here in Germany, all the access ISPs that are still growing truly fast (like, "Kabel Deutschland") have moved to a DS-Lite model where IPv4 is delivered over a CGNAT - because there is no way they can get enough IPv4 for millions of customers. It's even worse for hosting providers. You can't put web server farms behind a CGNAT box... (We've been unhappy with IPv4 for the last 15 years, because the whole topic of "you can only get what you fill in paperwork for" has been annyoing even back then) So: yeah, most ISPs are not exactly happy with the way IPv4 shortage plays out. But what's the alternative? "Some people are still not able to get all the IPv4 space they need, and other people will not get anything at all anymore"? This is what people are trying to tell you: RIPE policy needs to balance individual needs against the needs of everyone else. We fully understand that you're not happy, but the feedback you got so far is that nobody else supports the idea where you plan to go - and this is usually a pretty good indication that no, there is no consensus. (Judging comments, there is the type that says "yeah, support", the one that says "I like the general idea, but some details will not work" and the ones that say "this is a bad idea and will not work, because..." - unless you have more of the first ones, no go) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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