[137913] 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 17:08:32 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <34623.1298411682@localhost>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:08:23 -0600
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
>> 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
> "most pronounced from people not involved in operating production =
networks
> that are way behind the planning curve for IPv6 deployment".
>=20
> There, fixed that for you.
My original text remains true, because I tend to hear IPv6-only advocacy =
from vendors and policy folks more than operators - even more so versus =
operators of commercial ISP networks. But I take your point, that =
operators ahead of the IPv6 deployment curve are most likely to stand up =
with that opinion.
Of course, the "network effect" being what it is... Your network being =
100% IPv6 doesn't solve the overall problem of reachability. I think =
your example of 4% traffic from VT is applicable - you will have to =
worry about IPv4 connectivity, in one form or another, until it =
diminishes significantly. It's a bit like a tragedy of the commons.
Cheers,
-Benson
