[172487] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Thu Jun 19 16:27:52 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "John Curran" <jcurran@arin.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:27:41 -0400
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <64BD60BE-5A18-4DCE-9625-F02E2622A43A@arin.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:35:55 -0400, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
> Any suggestions on how ARIN should reach those CIO's in the meantime?
Refuse additional IPv4 assignments to those who have not deployed IPv6.
And not just been assigned a v6 block, but actually running IPv6 to every
customer who asks. (hard to police, sure.)
NONE of my ISPs have been able to provide IPv6 over the last decade. That
includes Verizon (aka UUNet), and AT&T (the not-Uverse-AT&T) who didn't
get past the sales call when they made it clear we "aren't big enough to
be connected to that gear."
TWTC: No.
Earthlink (ITC^D): No.
TWC: No. (but my home connection is seeing RAs, but DHCPv6 instantly
answers "no prefixes")
AT&T Uverse (business): 6rd, not static, not available everywhere, and
doesn't work every day.
(also, those fools are eating protocol 41 at the border, so tunnels
don't work.)
And those are just the ISPs I directly deal with. That list gets longer if
I include my employer's various ISPs around the globe. Heck, even the
checkpoint in Hong Kong doesn't have IPv6.
