[131328] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 sunset date revised : 2009-02-05
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Fri Oct 22 00:10:58 2010
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:10:08 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CC10A80.8070009@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:52:32PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 10:48 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> > not so much - it runs on linux instead of a closed OS.
> I think you missed the point. Many are waiting for it to be supported on
> their brand of routers. Not everyone has huge numbers of servers sitting
> around acting as translation gateways (or spying on traffic).
true dat. but there was also a subtext on CPE kit.
not all of us are big telcos or buy IP service from same.
to paraphrase Dave, if ATT decides to drop IPv4 support,
sigh its a pita, but I don't -NEED- ATT IP services.
I can get much/most of what I want/need w/ a little work/elbow
greese.
if the goal was to scare people w/ a very public "retirement" date
for IPv4 - then maybe it worked. As for me, the retirement date
was a year or so back. No worries here.
if folks fit the model described above, the rock is new/untested
code (IPv6 support) and the hard place is NAT (still going to need
it in a mixed v4/v6 world) ... If there are NAT functions w/
tested code paths that have already passed QA, then that becomes
an easier sell to mgmt - no?
And ATT realises that 99.982% of its customers
could care less if its IPv4 or IPv6 or IPX... They just know
(cause ATT told them) that the Internet grew out of the World
Wide Web... and that is what they need with their i[fone/pad/pod/tv].
ATT will find a way to keep its costs down and provide the functionality
demanded by its customers.
>
>
> Jack
