[186455] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Fri Dec 18 22:33:06 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:35:24 -0500
From: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <798937A2-415F-4316-BC48-D8C07769CB64@beckman.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
<nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
>will get us all there eventually.
Some companies will run out of IPv4 addresses before others. When that
happens, they have four choices:
1. Buy IPv4 addresses. But supply is going; in a couple of years, there
will be nothing larger than a /16. And this raises costs, and therefore
consumer prices.
2. Address sharing. Breaks p2p, some other things.
3. Address family translation. Breaks several things.
4. IPv6-only. Means only IPv6-enabled content is available.
That=B9s why some values of $we =B3need=B2 to force people to deploy IPv6: so
$we don=B9t screw consumers and break the Internet.
But those with IPv4 addresses see exhaustion as someone else=B9s problem.
They don=B9t care if somebody else=B9s prices go up, unless they=B9re the ones
blamed for the rising prices. (=B3You have to pay more for Internet access
or you won=B9t be able to reach Amazon or eBay.=B2)
They might not like the performance of address sharing/translation, but if
they wait until they notice the pain, and it takes them two years to
respond, they=B9re already in serious trouble.
There is still time for companies without IPv6 to get it deployed before
going out of business. But anyone who isn=B9t done two years from now is in
trouble.
Lee
