[137691] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Fri Feb 18 05:50:52 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13BB8@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:50:42 +0100
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 17 feb 2011, at 17:35, George Bonser wrote:
> Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, =
getting
> Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.
You really think people will be communicating over the public internet =
using IPv4 in 2031?
It will take a long time before the first people are going to turn off =
IPv4, but once that starts there will be no stopping it and IPv4 will be =
gone very, very quickly.
(Of course there will be legacy stuff, just like some people are still =
running IPX or AppleTalk today. I'm talking about the public internet =
here.)
Today people are complaining how annoying it is to have to learn new =
things to be able to run IPv6, but that doesn't compare to how annoying =
it is to have to learn OLD things to keep running a protocol that is way =
past its sell by date. I still need to teach class A/B/C despite the =
fact that CIDR is old enough to drink in most countries because without =
knowing that you can't configure a Cisco router. That's annoying now. =
Think about how insane that will be in the 2020s when the notion of =
requesting IPv4 addresses from an RIR is ancient history and young =
people don't know any better than having a /64 on every LAN that is big =
enough to connect all ethernet NICs ever made.
Speaking of class E: this address space could be usable for NAT64 =
translators. That way, only servers and routers need to be upgraded to =
work with class E, not CPEs or client OSes.=
