[177705] 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 21:55:09 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWsJqJT7rttFEAa2szPAFNew6xm-hAmNYroxPLWE2GuTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:49:45 -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 18:07 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>=20
> LOL, Owen, IPv6 had that with the first /64 ethernet LAN it was used =
on.
If you want to nit-pick, by =93deployed addresses=94, I mean addresses =
actually deployed on hosts and being used for cummunications.
This was a really stupid nit, even for you.
> How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4
> infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no
> longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will have achieved
> ubiquity.
Um, no. The judgment of one traditional telephone company is hardly =
where I would look to contemplate the future of the internet.
Heck, to a large degree, Verizon hasn=92t even figured out how to do =
IPv6 for FIOS customers yet, let alone their DSL subscribers.
Really not the shining example I would turn to. No. Certainly not the =
worst, but definitely not the leader, either.
Owen
