[98222] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Wilcox)
Thu Jul 26 09:17:16 2007
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:01:20 +0100
From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox@packetrade.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <p06240804c2ce25d5e6b7@[192.168.3.65]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 06:21:59AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> At 11:18 AM +0100 7/26/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >um, so thats consistent with what i said.. in fact it implies only a very small number of organisations need to pay close attention and those are the ones best suited to implementing policy changes to ensure their users continue to have a good service
> >
> >this means 90% of orgs can probably wait and see what the 10% do first..
>
> Completely incorrect. In order that we can continue to have
> reasonable routing growth during new customer add, those
> 10% need to move to IPv6. While you don't have to move
> your entire infrastructure to IPv6, you need to add IPv6 to
> the public-facing servers that you'd like to still be Internet
> connected.
well, the empirical data which is confirmed here is saying that those 10% are burning most of the v4 addresses and we are not seeing them rollout v6 whether they 'need to' or not
so you sound right in theory, but in practice your data doesnt show that is occuring and it also suggests those 10% are actively supporting 'the wall' approach.
Steve
