[99770] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Church, Charles)
Thu Oct 4 00:09:43 2007
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 22:59:54 -0500
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710040250130.26086@mono>
From: "Church, Charles" <cchurc05@harris.com>
To: "JAKO Andras" <jako.andras@eik.bme.hu>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: JAKO Andras [mailto:jako.andras@eik.bme.hu]=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:59 PM
To: Church, Charles
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG
Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
>An IPv6-only ISP with enough IPv4 addresses for its concurrent online=20
>users seems strange. Why wouldn't that ISP give those v4 addresses to
the=20
>online users instead of the NAT-PT box? And why do you call it
IPv6-only?
>Andras
Because not all users are online at the same time. Think back to the
days where you had x number of dialup lines for y number of subscribers.
It might be a 2:1 ratio. Maybe more, depending on how many time zones
an ISP serves. It's not a huge plus, but once IPv4 content providers
can see where x% of their web hits are coming from these NAT-PT blocks,
they might be more motivated to go dual-stack.
Chuck=20
