| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Hi, Sorry for the slow response. On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
David Conrad:Indeed, but it isn't clear to me how this proposal helps that situation. The ISPs with the most power are also the ones who probably already have offices/subsidiaries/partners/etc. in Latin America and Africa. Unless AfriNIC and LACNIC become _extremely_ stringent on membership and invest heavily in verification mechanisms, I don't see the larger ISPs even blinking at this sort of thing. Just the cost of doing business...Also the same question: What is the percentage of these large ISPs that have many offices in different RIR regions with regard to the whole ISPs in all RIR regions ?
Probably fairly small. However, it is probably worth noting that the majority of address space at the RIRs is consumed by a small minority of the members.
and to avoid the probable second market for IP addresses it’s better to insure at least 5 /8 blocks for each RIR.
Why do you think 5 /8s for each RIR will avoid a secondary market?
And each RIR is capable for regulate distribution and assignment of its pool in order to avoid that situation as much as possible… for Egypt there is three Large ISPs has offices in other RIR than AfriNICand they do use their IPs and AS they got from AfriNIC.
I am not fully aware of the situation in Africa (nor in Latin America and the Caribbean), but I would be surprised to find that there aren't countries in which it is possible to establish shell companies that do little more than establish a legal presence in that country. Further, it doesn't even have to be a shell, it could as easily be a partnership with an existing company, including an established ISP. All it takes is a bit of money, which large scale ISPs generally have.
ISPs in developed countries will do whatever is necessary to obtain the IPv4 to continue their business and not transit to IPv6, whereas ISPs in developing countries which are less in technical capabilities and face financial problems are required to transit to IPv6 faster than ISPs in developed countries .. Is it the fairness from your point of view ?
No, I wouldn't consider it fair. However, from the perspective of the large scale ISPs, it is just business. In any event, the point I've been trying to make is that regardless of what the RIRs do, a secondary market will almost certainly establish itself and it would probably be best for the RIRs to figure out how to deal with that fact rather than pretending business realities don't apply.
Please No NAT encourage, Philip can reply better than me for NAT advantages and disadvantages.. but Also NAT cost a lot of money as it requires special hardware cards (expensive one) in some routers to be able to do NATing
Given IPv6 is not backwards compatible with IPv4, you'll need some form of network address translation to allow folks who are IPv4-only to talk to sites that are IPv6-only and vice versa. The future is _full_ of some form of NAT.
Regards, -drc
