[136068] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Jan 31 23:46:57 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=d8uBPRVBoN0U6jntz9o2da17D2w6DuE-cKwhS@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:38:51 -0800
To: Jeremy <jbaino@gmail.com>
Cc: carlos@lacnic.net, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Discussed, Disgusted, and Dismissed.
The E space would take more software upgrades to existing systems than just
deploying IPv6.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Jeremy wrote:
> Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
> doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
> the problem here)
>
> -Jeremy
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
>>> 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
>>>
>>> There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about
>>> their plans for establishing connectivity with IPv6; so they can
>>> commmunicate with IPv6-only hosts that will begin to emerge
>>> later.
>>>
>>
>> What organizations (eye networks) will do is layer NAT till the cows come
>> home for some years to come. Buckle up!
>>
>> -Jack Carrozzo
>>
