[131329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 sunset date revised : 2009-02-05
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Fri Oct 22 00:27:55 2010
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <20101022041008.GA7662@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:27:46 -0400
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:10 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 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:
>>>=20
>>> 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=20
>> their brand of routers. Not everyone has huge numbers of servers =
sitting=20
>> around acting as translation gateways (or spying on traffic).
>=20
> true dat. but there was also a subtext on CPE kit.
>=20
> not all of us are big telcos or buy IP service from same.
>=20
> 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=09=
> greese. =20
> =09
> 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.
>=20
> 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/=20
> tested code paths that have already passed QA, then that becomes
> an easier sell to mgmt - no?
>=20
> And ATT realises that 99.982% of its customers=20
> 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].
> =09
> ATT will find a way to keep its costs down and provide the =
functionality
> demanded by its customers. =20
It seems to me that it would be very scary for AT&T for AT&T to say, "we =
will shut off IPv4 in X years, prepare now" -
what if provider X starts running ads saying "AT&T doesn't want your =
business, but we do and will keep you happy." So,
unless one provider really becomes dominate in 10-15 years, I don't see =
that happening.=20
If providers X, Y and Z band together to do this, I see anti-Trust =
issues (although IANAL).=20
I can't see an SDO like the IETF doing this (and the IETF is not immune =
to anti-trust, either).=20
So, if we go down this road, the only real path I see involves some =
government (US, EU, maybe in 15 years even the PRC) or
some set of governments mandating it. Whether that would be a good thing =
is left as an exercise to the reader.
Regards
Marshall=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Jack
>=20
>=20
