[191666] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: One Year On: IPv4 Exhaust
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Thornton)
Sun Sep 25 12:50:32 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 17:38:17 +0100
From: Paul Thornton <paul@prt.org>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQ7hSh1oSe1fnWbh2qD6BGeVqKx0kMu_QBnZbfAxgGk3w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 25/09/2016 17:29, Ca By wrote:
> For your use case , would ipv6 solve anything?
>
> Think it is fair to say big content and big eyeballs have moved to IPv6
> (notable exceptions exist)
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2016/08/facebook-akamai-pass-major-milestone-over-50-ipv6-from-us-mobile-networks/
Yes of course. Let's make the assumption that these people are happily
v6 enabled but need to support v4 for the foreseeable future.
Take, for example, large hosting environments. NAT isn't an option, nor
is v6 only at this point. For them, the only option to provide unique
v4 addresses for customers is to purchase it.
We may be in luck, and the v6 tipping point happens before the transfer
market runs out of reasonably-priced supply, and our hypothetical
example above can default to v6 only. If that happens, fantastic - but
I'm not sure I'd bet on it, even given the improved v6 takeup in the
past year or two.
Paul.
