NANOG 40 agenda posted

Nathan Ward nanog at
Sun May 27 12:40:00 UTC 2007

On 27/05/2007, at 11:06 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Nathan Ward wrote:
> [..]
>>> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4  
>>> addresses?
>> Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
>> one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
> Why not? If folks are still using Windows 98 by then I surely hope
> they can't have any connectivity to the Internet. The word "SpamDrone"
> comes to mind for those old versions. As Windows XP is already out for
> the last couple of years and has fully working IPv6 support, Vista is
> there also with fully working IPv6 support, the OS should definitely
> not be a problem anymore. For folks without money, all the Open
> Sourcish OS's also do IPv6 perfectly fine, some even already from the
> installer.

Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required. As  
I alluded to, getting content to move to IPv6 isn't terribly easy,  
and I don't think that proxying/NATing is a great solution, either.

>> If you were an end user, calling up your ISP to get a new DSL  
>> line, and
>> were told you couldn't have an IPv4 address, only IPv6, and "Sorry  
>> sir,
> [..]
> Your grandma really doesn't know what "IP" is, nor will she ever care.
> <stuff>

So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is  
to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.  
sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.

While I think that some degradation of service is inevitable, I  
believe that it would be better to minimise the lessening of service,  
and shorten the transition period, wouldn't you?

It occurs to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in your model of  
this transition there becomes little benefit to moving customers to  
IPv6 at all if being stuffed behind a v4 NAT or HTTP proxies counts  
as "Internet connectivity". Of course, I'm probably taking your  
suggestions to an extreme there.

>> [2] While
>> we're here, can someone point me in the direction of any ongoing
>> discussion/work in this area? I attended the APRICOT workshop, but  
>> where
>> to go to keep up with things/get involved isn't obvious.
> As mentioned in various places:
> ram at, see


Nathan Ward

More information about the NANOG mailing list