[161252] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What Should an Engineer Address when 'Selling' IPv6 to Executives?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Wed Mar 6 04:24:14 2013
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRDdtfWTGdQgmnoF9F-gMHv0AbK07o73RqbZJS7VKO7LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 04:24:04 -0500
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 5, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> So all meaningful growth (mobile, cloud, internet of things...) must =
happen on IPv6 ...
> or relatively expensive IPv4 addresses from the black market and / or =
NATs
Cameron -=20
=20
I agree with the intent, but just for clarity, I'd like to ask what =
you mean=20
by "the black market"? I see two possibilities, one being that the =
current=20
IPv4 address transfer regime is viewed as "illegitimate' (which would =
be the=20
typical use of the term 'black market'); or secondly, that the current =
IPv4
transfer system is fine but likely won't meet one's requirements for =
growth=20
and hence may require turning to transfers "outside the system", i.e. =
truly=20
to an underground black market...=20
I can see reasons to assert either view, but figured other folks might =
also=20
be wondering which of these two potential points you are making... :-)
Thanks!
/John
=20=
