[137906] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Tue Feb 22 16:36:27 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <m262scjus5.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:36:12 -0600
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
>> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
>> operating production networks.
>=20
> excuse me!
Hi, Randy. I didn't mean to deny you exist; you apparently do. ;) But =
in my sampling, operators with the opinion that 'IPv4 doesn't matter' =
represent the minority. Of course, it also depends on how you define =
"doesn't matter". I think that ongoing operation matters, especially =
when "ongoing" means a continued expectation of both existing and new =
customers. It's easy to say, "burn the IPv4 bridge" so we're forced to =
migrate to IPv6. But it's another thing to actually do it, when you're =
competing for customers that want IPv4 connectivity.
That said, we're not forced to choose only one: IPv4 vs. IPv6. We =
should migrate to IPv6 because it makes sense - IPv4 is going to become =
more expensive and painful (to use and support). That doesn't preclude =
us from patching IPv4 together long enough to cross the bridge first.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
-Benson
