<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>On 31/01/2011, at 5:59 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <<a href="mailto:mmc@internode.com.au">mmc@internode.com.au</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 01/02/2011, at 12:22 PM, David Hughes wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
The one place this does hit much harder is the content / hosting provider space. It's a bit hard to put Mr Joe Citizen's shiny new internet facing server behind a layer of CGN. That segment of the industry had better be ferreting away to support v6 in their
hosting platforms, networks, OSs, and backoffice systems. Time is certainly running short.<br>
<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br>
</font></font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Some people are trying to change to rules to reduce the allocation rules for the last /8 to the last /9 which will reduce the amount of space available for new startups wanting to do this. See APNIC sigpolicy proposal prop-91.</div></div></blockquote><br><div>But only if many startups are approaching APNIC for that space. And it doesn't help someone like my previous employer that had many single server colocation customers that would need v4 for hosting, that can't get another allocation from the final /8 to serve that sort of customer.</div><div><br></div><div>Swings and roundabouts, but best discussed on the policy sig list.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>