[136119] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Tue Feb 1 10:14:28 2011
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <3A05D51F-6792-497A-82A5-71DAA986772E@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:13:34 -0500
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, carlos@lacnic.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:53 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>=20
>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:18:17PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> On 1 feb 2011, at 4:55, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 =
-
>>>> 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
>>>=20
>>> IPv4 is very dead in the sense that it's not going to go anywhere in =
the future.
>>>=20
>>> The rest is just procrastination.
>>=20
>>=20
>> taking the long view - your statement applies equally to IPv6.
>>=20
>> of course YMMV
>>=20
>> --bill
>=20
> I disagree. I think there is little, if any, innovation that will =
continue to be put
> into IPv4 hence forth. I think there will be much innovation in IPv6 =
in the
> coming years.
I think that this is what will finally drive true v6 adaptation (as =
opposed to having it as some sort of super NAT).
As v6 innovation continues, v4 will be seen as something obsolete that =
needs constant work (and v4 innovation will be more and more about
patching it to work and keep up with v6).=20
Regards
Marshall
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>=20
>=20
