shim6 @ NANOG

Per Heldal heldal at
Mon Mar 6 09:07:22 UTC 2006

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:17:26 +0100, "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
<iljitsch at> said:
> On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:
> > 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 Heldal

More information about the NANOG mailing list