[89247] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Per Heldal)
Mon Mar 6 04:07:51 2006
From: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <8B1FA1CF-4BEF-442A-9158-334B4EAE025E@muada.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:07:22 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:17:26 +0100, "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
<iljitsch@muada.com> said:
>
> On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > Unless we start now working on getting people moved to IPv6, the
> > pain of running out of IPv4 before IPv6 has reached critical mass
> > is going to be much much worse than a long term problem of IPv6
> > route size.
>
> I disagree. You assume that IPv6 will be able to gain critical mass
> before IPv4 addresses run out. I don't think that will happen,
> because of the chicken/egg problem. "Running out" is a relative term.
> John Klensin says we've effictively already run out because IPv4
> addresses are too hard to get for some applications. That may be true
> but people aren't turning to IPv6 (yet) to run those applications. My
> prediction is that we'll see interesting things happen when the
> remaining IPv4 address suppy < 3 * addresses used per year. That will
> probably happen around the end of this decade. At that point, there
> is likely to be hoarding and/or the allocation policies will become
> stricter, and people will start to think about a future where it's no
> longer possible to get IPv4 addresses. At this point, there will
> still be time to migrate.
Doesn't the above disagreement indicate that IPv6 is incomplete until a
workable locator/id-split is implemented?
If so, why bother with operational policies and deployment beyond what
is of experimental nature necessary to facilitate further development?
//per
--
Per Heldal
http://heldal.eml.cc/
