PM me your details baukhorse and I'll be happy to look in to any queries you have.

Thanks.

Chris
Swish Fibre Team

In reply to a post by Swish_Fibre:

PM me your details baukhorse and I'll be happy to look in to any queries you have.

Thanks.

Chris
Swish Fibre Team

Chris, have you contacted Seb about becoming a recognised ISP on this forum as it would support your authenticity.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by Swish_Fibre:

PM me your details baukhorse and I'll be happy to look in to any queries you have.

Thanks.

Chris
Swish Fibre Team

Chris, have you contacted Seb about becoming a recognised ISP on this forum as it would support your authenticity.

Yes, I reached out a couple of weeks back, but have yet to hear back.

Chris
Swish Fibre Team

In reply to a post by Swish_Fibre:

Yes, I reached out a couple of weeks back, but have yet to hear back.

Chris
Swish Fibre Team

I have just raised it in TTTS to see if it can be progressed subject to any checks/verification

In reply to a post by jpm:

I would like to see Ofcom mandate IPv6 where networks are defaulting to CGNAT for IPv4.

I expect Swish (and other new boys to the market) are relying on it as they dont have enough ipv4's, we dont have enough, but this has been masked because the big boys have hoarded them and are acting like there is no crisis.

This is what I would like to see ofcom do.

Anything below 90% of utilisation of IPv4 added to pool ran by ofcom (below 96% if IPv6 not rolled out on network to force a business case for IPv6) , they can redistribute to isp's that need them.
Require IPv6 to be running to allow a request for IPv4 allocation.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 12-Feb-22 10:46:22)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

This is what I would like to see ofcom do.

Anything below 90% of utilisation of IPv4 added to pool ran by ofcom (below 96% if IPv6 not rolled out on network to force a business case for IPv6) , they can redistribute to isp's that need them.

That don't work, for lots of reasons.

Firstly, because of the huge fragmentation it would cause to route announcements. Blocks can only be split into half, and half again, etc. The original ISP who was announcing one large block will have to start announcing many fragments, as well as the recipient.

Secondly, the ISP is likely to have used parts of the block across the whole range. They would be forced to renumber everything into more contiguous blocks. This would involve things like all leased line customers having to change their assignments.

Thirdly, it just isn't going to work contractually, or in accordance with RIR policies.

And finally, the amount freed will be so small as not to be worth the effort; it will very quickly be given out, and then you're back to square one.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Require IPv6 to be running to allow a request for IPv4 allocation.

That policy kind-of did exist at RIPE for a while. However it was pointless and I believe was dropped. All you had to do was request an IPv6 block. Even if you were forced to announce it via BGP, that doesn't mean you're using it for anything of value. Maybe you just make your ISP's home page available by IPv6, and nothing else.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

That policy kind-of did exist at RIPE for a while. However it was pointless and I believe was dropped. All you had to do was request an IPv6 block. Even if you were forced to announce it via BGP, that doesn't mean you're using it for anything of value. Maybe you just make your ISP's home page available by IPv6, and nothing else.

Sounds like they were too lazy to enforce it properly. My idea obviously meant requiring a high majority of customers to be IPv6 enabled rather than them just requesting an IPv6 block and using it for minimal services.

In regards to available IPv4, there is enough unused IPv4 been hoarded. Although I do accept your point about fragmentation with spitting networks into blocks.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In regards to available IPv4, there is enough unused IPv4 been hoarded.

Enough for what? Enough for UK ISPs to give their spares to tiny UK altnets only? Maybe. But if the addresses were returned to RIPE - which is the correct process for address transfers - then RIPE would have plenty of other demand within Europe to soak them up immediately.

But it's all moot, since it's completely impractical, and therefore it won't happen.

One ray of light is that China is thinking of going IPv6-only by end of the decade (Asia has the depletion problem far worse than we do). If that happens, that will force content providers to go dual-stack or risk losing a large chunk of their global audience.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by Swish_Fibre:

Yes, I reached out a couple of weeks back, but have yet to hear back.

Chris
Swish Fibre Team

I have just raised it in TTTS to see if it can be progressed subject to any checks/verification

Hi Chris, looks like you have now been elevated. Keep up the good work

The problem is content providers are not the problem, broadband isps are, the big content providers are mostly already dual stack. China's move would force the rest of them over but it does nothing to force the likes of VM to enable IPv6 on their network.

Interesting that you really dont like the idea. You not even neutral on it, which has me curious.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 14-Feb-22 11:27:50)