North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: /8 end user assignment?
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:35:24PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > 1. Softbank BB is not on my radar of likely /8 candidates (of course, > geography may be the reason for that) Indeed, ASPAC is off most of our radars. :) Given the size of Softbanks subscriber base, I'm not surprised about the /8 alloc at all. > 2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can use > this many IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and IPv6. So you ask folks to resort to hacks like NAT or force IPv6-only to their users when there is still a lack-of-content problem there? Can you show me your business plan draft for that? I'm curious. :-) > If everyone in this category who could justify a /8 applied and > received them we might be in real trouble with our IPv4 space. We are already, but you seem to have your head firmly sticking in the sand, together with the content providers. :-) It looks like IPv4 space really needs to "run out" before the residential access ISPs are really being forced to IPv6 and thus the content providers wake up too. BTW, Softbank got 2400:2000::/20. > I had said elsewhere this was unprecedented but was then pointed at > 220.127.116.11/9, 18.104.22.168/10 which is Comcast assigned in April. I'm > surprised none of these assignemtns have shown up on mailing lists.. Why should they? Business as usual. :-) I hope that more ISPs stop doing NAT/RFC1918 and just request whatever they need. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0