[131290] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 21 21:09:35 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CC08C38.80409@ttec.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:07:43 -0700
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Dan White wrote:
>=20
>>> Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
>>=20
>> I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until =
you
>> start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
>=20
> When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your =
target populations to matter?
>=20
Shortly after runout and that depends on the nature of the growth in =
your userbase.
>> =46rom an accounting and cost
>> recovery stand point, that probably makes sense in some environments.
>>=20
>> However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping =
up
>> after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion.
>=20
> There is a phase you are missing between depletion and v6 only hosts.
>=20
Not really.
> That would be continual and increasing difficulties of obtaining new =
v4 access and degradation of the quality of that service, hopefully =
along with a direct inverse effect on the quality and resultant value of =
v6 service.
>=20
That phase will be short-lived and steep.
> The time line and gradations of that phase are far less clear than =
depletion.
>=20
Less clear, yes. Far less? I'm not so sure about that.
> That would explain why so many do not concern themselves with it at =
this time. Especially those who do not consider themselves to be the =
party initially responsible for resolving those issues.
>=20
I think a more accurate explanation would be a behavior common to =
Ostriches when experiencing fear.
Tony Hain has a pretty good slide on the stages of IPv6 grief. It seems =
many engineers and organizations are somehow still in denial and few =
have moved to rationalization or acceptance.
> http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2006-07-30/
>=20
Cute, but, remember, Mr. Adams used to be a Pacific Bell employee. Not =
exactly the shining example of a forward thinking or innovative company.
So much not so that they ended up being acquired by SBC which later =
bought and renamed itself AT&T.
Owen
