NANOG 40 agenda posted

Jared Mauch jared at
Sun May 27 21:27:36 UTC 2007

On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 03:14:44PM +0000, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <christopher.morrow at> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > > on things, could cost some money.  I'd love to see google or Y! with
> > > > an AAAA record.  Or even Microsoft ;)
> > >
> > > i agree 100%, which is why I posted something similar almost 2 years ago
> > > now :(  It'd be very good to get some actual content on v6 that the masses
> > > want to view/use.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
> honestly I have no idea... at this point (15 yrs into the process) there
> has to be SOME reason, its just not clear which one it will be. Scarcity
> of v4 addresses might just mean more and more NAT gets deployed... or it
> could mean that v6 starts to show up on content provider networks. I doubt
> there will be a network that is only ipv6 and successful anytime soon,
> there simply is no content of consequence available only via v6 today
> (heck, there's no consequential content available on v6 AND v4 currently).
> I think that it is in most folks interest to get some familarity with and
> experience with the coming change, before it's on the critical path. Using
> Google as an example, if they don't have v6 deployed/testing today and
> tomorrow a portion (sizable enough for them to notice) of their userbase
> moves to mostly v6 access methods (say v6 only transport with some v6->v4
> gateway) they may feel pressured into deploying v6 access to their
> services without proper testing/scaling/management. That could be messy...
> One of the things that came back as interesting (to me) from the thread 2
> years ago was that adding a v6 vif to the content wasn't the scary part.
> What was scary was the OSS/backend/metrics/management parts that all
> needed to understand what ipv6 addresses were. I wonder if
> google-analytics understands ipv6 yet?
> In short Marty, I'm not sure what the driving factor will be, I'm not
> holding out hope that it's v4 depletion though.

	I think there are other hurdles that the industry is facing
(or ignoring) which will be more pressing than this v4 space shortage "issue".

	Not the least of currently is the lack of something past
40G currently.  I'm interested to see the participants in the 40G vs 100G
panel, and from those that have been attending the IEEE and ITU meetings
on these topics.  My understanding is there's somewhat of a shift in the way
things are being done this time around because the demand of increased
speed has grown since 2001, and there have been no "higher speed" solutions
introduced since that timeframe.  (i'm taking into account engineering
and product pipeline timeframes here).  If you're not feeling the pinch,
I suspect your transit provider may be.

	- Jared

Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at
clue++;      |  My statements are only mine.

More information about the NANOG mailing list