[177702] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 allocation plan, security, and 6-to-4 conversion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 30 20:47:18 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXtXT5d4vNc-7H=9dP-FMmAgJhOOqWgcs2mwPjkArPOyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:44:30 -0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 09:39 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>> * William Herrin
>>=20
>>> Plan on dual-stacking any network which requires
>>> access to IPv4 resources such as the public Internet.
>>=20
>> For many folks, that's easier said than done.
>>=20
>> Think about it: If everyone could just dual-stack their networks, =
they
>> might as well single-stack them on IPv4 instead; there would be no
>> point whatsoever in transitioning to IPv6 for anyone.
>=20
> Hi Tore,
>=20
> That's what NAT is for. Use RFC 1918 space for end users, RFC 6598
> space for ISPs.
And here I thought NAT was merely a tool used by sadists to satisfy =
masochists.
Oh, wait=85 We=92re saying the same thing.
> Plan on dual-stacking until IPv6 deployment is ubiquitous. Which won't
> be this year. Or next.
I think you=92re right about this year, Not completely sure about next =
year.
Current growth rates in the two protocols suggest at least that there =
will
be more devices with unique IPv6 addresses than IPv4 addresses somewhere
in the latter half of next year.
I guess it depends on your definition of ubiquitous, but to me, when a =
protocol
has the majority of the deployed addresses, I think it counts for this =
purpose.
Owen
