<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Dear Paolo,<br />
<br />
> As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future<br />
> proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT<br />
> networks, lovely isn't it?<br />
<br />
I think it is not only about Italy. As usual customer I don't see IPv6 around me. ISP in our business center doesn't support IPv6. At home i have only IPv4 too. O yes, IPv6 was installed on some our servers. I can ping Gooooogle. Thats all. No any clients use IPv6. Big telecoms in Russia made some tests and switched back to IPv4. <br />
<br />
Does any global telecom support IPv6? I just checked some answers. For example, here I see that custommer report to Vodafone that IPv6 doesn't work. And support tell that it is not problem, while IPv6 is not supported: <a href="http://community.vodafone.com.au/t5/Mobile-Broadband/Mobile-Broadband-Ipv4-and-ipv6-connectivity/td-p/119466" target="_blank" title="http://community.vodafone.com.au/t5/Mobile-Broadband/Mobile-Broadband-Ipv4-and-ipv6-connectivity/td-p/119466">http://community.vodafone.com.au/t5/Mobile-Broadband/Mobile-Broadband-Ipv4-and-ipv6-connectivity/td-p/119466</a><br />
<br />
"This being said, the IPv6 isn't something that Vodafone currently supports so wouldn't be the cause of your connectivity issue. Your broadband device would only be programmed to run on the original IPv4."<br />
<br />
<div>
-- <br />
Alexey Ivanov<br />
LeaderTelecom Ltd.</div>
<br />
27.07.2012 14:40 - Paolo Di Francesco написал(а):<br />
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite">
> Dear Erik,<br />
><br />
> > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8<br />
> and a whole block of 16 bit ASN<br />
> > pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE,<br />
> their answer was :<br />
> > <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years<br />
> already. Everyone should do<br />
> > the same ...</end quote><br />
> > That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.<br />
><br />
> Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably<br />
> ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need<br />
> new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments?<br />
> All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from<br />
> finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next?<br />
> It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money?<br />
> NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut<br />
> costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will<br />
> grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that<br />
> chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.<br />
<br />
I have heard that before, and moreover there is a training cost for<br />
sysadmin and tech guys and call center.<br />
<br />
the point to me is also: who will pay 5 Euros, or 50 Euros for 1 IPv4<br />
when the transition will be completed?<br />
<br />
I mean, if a customer wants a /24 it's a very good deal: a lot of money<br />
for a rare resource<br />
<br />
But what will happen with those companies that are basing part of their<br />
business upon IPv4 address incomes?<br />
<br />
<br />
> > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and<br />
> out-dated by the time it comes<br />
> > into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the<br />
> resource pool is already in the final /8.<br />
> > And that pool won't magically grow back above it ...<br />
> > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction<br />
> where things should go for the<br />
> > above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a<br />
> resource that is gone ... To have<br />
> > this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...<br />
><br />
> But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And<br />
> all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs<br />
> will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4<br />
> when they will provide only IPv6?<br />
<br />
it seems we are going a little off topic, but not so much: if one ISP<br />
will ask for IPv4 and it will be over, in Italy it means that ISP will<br />
not be able to connect with most of the Italian (end user generated)<br />
traffic.<br />
<br />
As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future<br />
proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT<br />
networks, lovely isn't it?<br />
<br />
Which in my understanding poses a problem regarding the market: what<br />
will be the performances of a customer with pure IPv6 ISP when trying to<br />
reach big systems with Italy with ONLY IPv4?<br />
<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
<br />
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco<br />
<br />
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale<br />
<br />
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo<br />
<br />
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825<br />
Fax : +39-091-8772072<br />
assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432<br />
web: <a href="http://www.level7.it" target="_blank" title="http://www.level7.it">http://www.level7.it</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss<br />
mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:<br />
<a href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view" target="_blank" title="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view</a><br />
<br />
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you<br />
can add or remove addresses.</div>
</body></html>