[182387] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Wed Jul 15 20:17:21 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>,
George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:07:56 -0700
In-Reply-To: <55A6EE2B.5040201@ttec.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--FgGLKCLcFvCWPqFBgDHuuOnK2lPefbrQH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 7/15/15 4:35 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
<snip>
> At this point, you are running the risk of conflating your goals with
> your technical objections to the goals of others. And this has always
> been the real underlying issue.
My goal in an operational capacity is to continue to hold onto the
quality and utility of IPv4 services until my customers don't need them
anymore whether that comes 5 years from now, 10 or never. balkanzing
them on the basis of what prefixes they can reach, and consigning new or
growning entrants to address ranges that poorly serve the installed
base doesn't serve that end.
IPv4 as a mature deployed technology is quite successful at resisting
innovation whether in the forwarding plane or at the transport. When I
consider where I should be expending resources on IPv4 inovation or
elsewhere, I look to minimize the NRE I have to expend sustaining IPv4.
> Joe
>=20
--FgGLKCLcFvCWPqFBgDHuuOnK2lPefbrQH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlWm9d0ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrJ6tgCfYOCS/5QR7/gI/+uyJP5Z4fLq
zUkAn3V9B8Bbwmb4s1SAgTKAghUIh7zI
=g2HJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--FgGLKCLcFvCWPqFBgDHuuOnK2lPefbrQH--
