IPv4 sunset date revised : 2009-02-05

Fri Oct 22 04:27:46 UTC 2010

On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:10 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:52:32PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
>> On 10/21/2010 10:48 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 	not so much - it runs on linux instead of a closed OS.
>> I think you missed the point. Many are waiting for it to be supported on 
>> their brand of routers. Not everyone has huge numbers of servers sitting 
>> around acting as translation gateways (or spying on traffic).
> 
> 	true dat.  but there was also a subtext on CPE kit.
> 
> 	not all of us are big telcos or buy IP service from same.
> 
> 	to paraphrase Dave, if ATT decides to drop IPv4 support,
> 	sigh its a pita, but I don't -NEED- ATT IP services.
> 	I can get much/most of what I want/need w/ a little work/elbow	
> 	greese.  
> 	
> 	if the goal was to scare people w/ a very public "retirement" date
> 	for IPv4 - then maybe it worked.  As for me, the retirement date
> 	was a year or so back.  No worries here.
> 
> 	if folks fit the model described above, the rock is new/untested
> 	code (IPv6 support) and the hard place is NAT (still going to need
> 	it in a mixed v4/v6 world)  ... If there are NAT functions w/ 
> 	tested code paths that have already passed QA, then that becomes
> 	an easier sell to mgmt - no?
> 
> 	And ATT realises that 99.982% of its customers 
> 	could care less if its IPv4 or IPv6 or IPX... They just know
> 	(cause ATT told them) that the Internet grew out of the World
> 	Wide Web... and that is what they need with their i[fone/pad/pod/tv].
> 	
> 	ATT will find a way to keep its costs down and provide the functionality
> 	demanded by its customers.  

It seems to me that it would be very scary for AT&T for AT&T to say, "we will shut off IPv4 in X years, prepare now" -
what if provider X starts running ads saying "AT&T doesn't want your business, but we do and will keep you happy." So,
unless one provider really becomes dominate in 10-15 years, I don't see that happening. 

If providers X, Y and Z band together to do this, I see anti-Trust issues (although IANAL). 

I can't see an SDO like the IETF doing this (and the IETF is not immune to anti-trust, either). 

So, if we go down this road, the only real path I see involves some government (US, EU, maybe in 15 years even the PRC) or
some set of governments mandating it. Whether that would be a good thing is left as an exercise to the reader.

Regards
Marshall 

>> 
>> 
>> Jack
> 
> 