[124676] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sat Apr 3 17:36:37 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAABa3wZheJVIR45rbqPho5y5AQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 11:35:56 -1000
To: frnkblk@iname.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years =
ago,
> why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not =
the
> hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or =
processes?
Or the fact that "supporting IPv6" could (and as far I could tell did =
until very recently) mean minimalistic process switching of packets =
without any of the 'niceties' of filtering, management, monitoring, etc. =
support. It also ignores the fact that there is a bit more to providing =
Internet service than simply running routers.
However, historically we had:
1) why should ISPs pay to deploy IPv6 when their customers aren't asking =
for it?
2) why should customers ask for IPv6 when there is no content available =
via it?
3) why should content providers make their content available over IPv6 =
when they can't get it from their ISPs and none of their customers are =
asking for it?
It may be that IPv4 free pool run out will result in costs for obtaining =
IPv4 to rise sufficiently to address (1). Or we could have multi-layer =
NAT.
Regards,
-drc
