Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment
Hi Jim, Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 2:15 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: IPv6 connectivity in Iran
On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:30, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:
As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159 belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled by government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is simply no IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian service providers.
There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet. there is also no IXP in the country.
Well that lack of IPv6 appears to be a major gap in the market and a worthwhile business opportunity with huge growth potential. So is the lack of an in-country IXP. IMO it’s up to the Iranian Internet community to tackle these issues and make the most of these business opporrtunities. It is probably inappropriate for this WG to discuss how to exploit these gaps. They can’t really be helped (or hindered) by RIPE address policy anyway. Mind you if anyone is minded to set up an IXP in Iran, they will have to move quickly if they need/want some IPv4 from the NCC for local interconnect and peering. PS: Apologies for a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.
I don’t think the regulator is forbidding using a 6in4 tunnel because LI regulation, otherwise, they will not allow any kind of VPN, etc? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> Responder a: <arash_mpc@parsun.com> Fecha: domingo, 12 de junio de 2016, 19:36 Para: 'Jim Reid' <jim@rfc1035.com> CC: 'RIPE Address Policy WG List' <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment
Hi Jim,
Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area.
Regards,
Arash Naderpour
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 2:15 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: IPv6 connectivity in Iran
On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:30, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:
As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159 belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled by government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is simply no IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian service providers.
There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet. there is also no IXP in the country.
Well that lack of IPv6 appears to be a major gap in the market and a worthwhile business opportunity with huge growth potential. So is the lack of an in-country IXP. IMO it’s up to the Iranian Internet community to tackle these issues and make the most of these business opporrtunities. It is probably inappropriate for this WG to discuss how to exploit these gaps. They can’t really be helped (or hindered) by RIPE address policy anyway. Mind you if anyone is minded to set up an IXP in Iran, they will have to move quickly if they need/want some IPv4 from the NCC for local interconnect and peering.
PS: Apologies for a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016, at 02:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don’t think the regulator is forbidding using a 6in4 tunnel because LI regulation, otherwise, they will not allow any kind of VPN, etc?
I don't think they do. But chasing 100 000 users running VPNs is not the same thing as chasing 10 ISPs providing VPN-like services (by default) to users.
Arash Naderpour wrote:
Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area.
Arash, individually, people are probably sympathetic to the fact that companies and organisations in Iran are unable to deploy ipv6 for legal reasons. However, if the iranian government / regulatory authorities insist on shooting themselves in the foot by prohibiting ipv6, it's not the responsibility of the RIPE community to work around the damage that this causes. The IPv4 boat has sailed. It's now time to move on. Nick
Hi Nick, That was just an example to let community knows that it is not only technical difficulties preventing some areas sticking to IPv4, There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are really interested) with similar or other type of non-technical limitations. RIPE Community does not belongs just to the ones who have possibility to deploy IPv6, (even if it is not the community responsibility to work around the damages some governments are causing) Regards, Arash -----Original Message----- From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:nick@foobar.org] Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 8:47 PM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> Cc: 'Jim Reid' <jim@rfc1035.com>; 'RIPE Address Policy WG List' <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment Arash Naderpour wrote:
Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area.
Arash, individually, people are probably sympathetic to the fact that companies and organisations in Iran are unable to deploy ipv6 for legal reasons. However, if the iranian government / regulatory authorities insist on shooting themselves in the foot by prohibiting ipv6, it's not the responsibility of the RIPE community to work around the damage that this causes. The IPv4 boat has sailed. It's now time to move on. Nick
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Hi Nick,
That was just an example to let community knows that it is not only technical difficulties preventing some areas sticking to IPv4, There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are really interested) with similar or other type of non-technical limitations.
RIPE Community does not belongs just to the ones who have possibility to deploy IPv6, (even if it is not the community responsibility to work around the damages some governments are causing)
Sure. There are lots of governments implementing all kinds of policies that make things worse for the general population in that country. Unfortunately, there is nothing RIPE can do to help these countries and their goverments, because RIPE doesn't have huge blocks of addresses to give out. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:41:21PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are really interested) with similar or other type of non-technical limitations.
I am. In some cases ties exist to actually start working on these limitations. (And it helps understand the environment we all have to operate in) 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
Arash Naderpour wrote:
That was just an example to let community knows that it is not only technical difficulties preventing some areas sticking to IPv4, There are more countries out there (I can prepare a list if you are really interested) with similar or other type of non-technical limitations.
RIPE Community does not belongs just to the ones who have possibility to deploy IPv6, (even if it is not the community responsibility to work around the damages some governments are causing)
Arash, what do you propose as a solution then? Nick
participants (6)
-
Arash Naderpour -
Gert Doering -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Nick Hilliard -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN