[137917] 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 17:58:32 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <179801cbd2e1$bb904560$32b0d020$@net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:58:19 -0600
To: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Seriously, some people will not move until the path they are on is =
already
> burning, which is why they did nothing over the last 5 years despite =
knowing
> that the IANA pool was exhausting much faster than they had wanted to
> believe. It took getting within months of exhausting the IANA pool =
before
> the crowd woke up and noticed the path was on fire. Now you want 'just =
a
> little more'... after which it will be 'just a little more'.
This won't go on forever. The "price" of IPv4 has been kept =
artificially low for the past decade, through a RIR-based system of =
rationing. There was never an immediate incentive to migrate. If we =
really wanted to motivate people before they reached the precipice, we =
should have increasingly raised the cost of an IPv4 address.
Now, IPv4 exhaustion has effectively raised that cost for us, and people =
are motivated to migrate to IPv6. But since we didn't force this =
situation sooner, we now also have to deal with the effects of =
exhaustion. That's all I'm talking about. IPv4 hacks will not be =
better or cheaper than IPv6, and they're nothing to fear in terms of =
IPv6 adoption.
Cheers,
-Benson
