At 17:29 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in
getting a new
chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP?
=> the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are
so heavy than nobody wants to follow them to get some address space...
Obviously the purpose is to discourage us to ask for chunk of IPv4
addresses. For IPv6 the procedure is painful but usable.
What is the average delay you experiment?
=> infinite for IPv4, two months for IPv6.
Thank you for this very valuable/key piece of information.
What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs
are not as easy to deal with as others?
That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong,
and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected.
You see, a user only cares about what he realy gets. A partner of mine was
unable to get an IPv4 address in 2 years. Same for chunks. I do not think
there is any other need to document why there are NATs and no IPv6. NAT is
seen as an alternative to IPv6. While IPv6 should be an alternative to
IPv4. In blocking IPv4 XIRs block IPv6. Basic marketing.
I only helped a few more responses like Francis' one would help to
understand there is a problem now, not in a few years.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf