[169989] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Sat Mar 22 15:19:25 2014
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:17:58 +0200
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1403221135590.13760@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart4073148.2JnHPMoF2f
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 05:54:06 PM Justin M. Streiner=20
wrote:
> Interesting analogy, but it misses the larger point. The
> larger point is that the ongoing effort to squeeze more
> mileage out of IPv4 will soon [1] outweigh the mileage
> we (collectively) get out of it. IMHO, that effort is
> better invested in preparing for and deplying IPv6.=20
> Things like LSN/CGN are stop-gaps that result in
> performance problems for people behind them, and aren't
> terribly useful for people who need to run inbound
> services. Shaking down entities (to the extent that
> they can be shaken down) that have chunks of IPv4
> they're not currently using doesn't change the end-game
> for IPv4.
And to keep into perspective, the fact that a good portion=20
of the registry community have run out of IPv4 space to=20
allocate.
A number of existing and new ISP's are going to find that=20
getting IPv6 going is probably a better solution than=20
keeping IPv4 alive (many will learn this the hard way).=20
Heck, it won't surprise me if some popular OTT and social=20
networking providers "force" the IPv6 issue since democracy=20
isn't often the best way to get something like this done.
In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for=20
IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when=20
everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or=20
frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone will=20
have time to help you troubleshoot patchy (for example) IPv4=20
connectivity when all the focus is on IPv6?
AFRINIC still have lots of IPv4 space. I'm not sure that=20
gives operators in that region any advantage over anyone=20
else, if the rest of the world is active on IPv6, i.e.,=20
while it may be easier to justify a /8 of IPv4 and get it=20
from a registry that still has space, you're likely doing=20
yourself a disservice in taking this route (and spending all=20
the time and energy numbering out of that /8), because that=20
/8 won't be very helpful if the most of the rest of the=20
Internet is letting IPv4 go.
Mark.
--nextPart4073148.2JnHPMoF2f
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=yHpz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart4073148.2JnHPMoF2f--
