OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

Tim Durack tdurack at gmail.com
Sat Apr 10 15:36:25 CDT 2010

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2010, at 9:40 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>>> karine perset's work is, as usual, good enough that it should be seen in
>>> it's original, not some circle-je^h^hid hack of a small part of it.
>>> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/8/44961688.pdf
>> John,
>> I'd like to call your attention to slide 8, the chart showing growth
>> in fully working IPv6 deployments. Should that growth trend be allowed
>> to continue, IPv4-only deployments can be expected to fall into the
>> minority after another few hundred years.
>> The upcoming conversion of IPv4 addressing into a zero-sum game (as a
>> result of free pool depletion) is likely to increase this growth
>> trend, but it's anybody's guess whether the new growth trend improves
>> to something with a faster-than-linear feedback loop. And of course
>> once free pool depletion hits, the cost to deploy additional IPv4
>> systems starts to grow immediately, independent of pre-majority IPv6
>> growth.
> In fact, IPv6 is already showing greater than linear acceleration in
> deployment, so, even though IPv4 hasn't run out yet, people are
> beginning to catch on.
>> We might want to consider additional public policy incentives to kick
>> the IPv6 growth rate into a higher gear.
> Such as?
> Owen

Notify all holders of a currently active AS they have been
allocated/assigned a /32. No fees. No questions.

To accept the allocation/assignment, it must be advertised within a 24
month period.

There is no shortage of available /32s in 2000::/3. There is a serious
shortage of meaningful deployment.


More information about the NANOG mailing list