Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA

Tue Oct 19 23:48:49 UTC 2010

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid at zaidali.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
>> of being overloaded.
>
> And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
> of IPv6 growth so you can justify him/her to sign off on IPv6 expenses. A
> CFO will never act unless there is a real business problem. There are some
> of us here who have management with clue but there are many that don't,
> sadly this is the majority and a large contributor to the slow adoption of
> IPv6.
>
> Zaid

I fully expect to see information about IPv6 readiness start becoming a required
item on quarterly SEC filings for publicly owned companies that depend on
additional IP space being available in order to grow their business.  In light
of the recent financial meltdowns, and post-Enron SOx compliance requirements,
no public company is going to want to face charges that they knowingly mislead
their shareholders about the future viability of their company, and of
their stock,
if they based their business growth around the availability of IPv4 addresses,
knowing that supply was on the verge of running out.

I'll wager that within 18 months, if you're at a publicly traded company, your
CFO will be coming to *you* (or your IP administrator) on a quarterly basis
to validate the viability of your IP address plan before signing off on the SEC
filings and annual audits of the company, to make sure they're not the ones
holding the bag in case the company suddenly can't sign on any new customers.

Matt