IP4 Space

Dave Israel davei at otd.com
Fri Mar 26 20:32:02 UTC 2010



On 3/26/2010 1:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> You should ask your server guy how he plans to talk to your core
> stakeholders when they can't get IPv4 any more.

Then, at that time, both he and his key stakeholders will experience
pain while they both deploy IPv6, or more likely,  his key stakeholders
will add another level of NAT-like indirection to give themselves space
to expand with the address pool they have.

>> At the CxO level, it's all about the money.  Or the lack therof.
>>
> How much less money will you have when donors can not reach your
> website or have a poor user experience doing so?

This assumption is incorrect. "They can't keep nursing IPv4 forever. 
Eventually everybody will have to switch to v6.  If you don't, you'll be
sorry.  Just wait and see."  That attitude did not force any previous
supposed IPv4-killer protocol to be deployed.  The fact is, for the
foreseeable future,  his donors will tend to have a better experience
over v4 than v6.  He isn't going to be blindsided by the need to deploy
v6, and he knows it.  By the time an important v4 host is not reachable
via the entire internet (and at full speed), v6 will have been
everywhere for years.

An address space crisis will not result in v6 deployment from repentant
network engineers who did not see the light in time.  An address space
crisis will merely result in more hacks to keep v4 running longer.  v6
will be deployed slowly by the curious, encouraged by features v6 has
that they want and with the assumption that they will still be able to
do everything they can do on v4 (either through translation or dual
stacking.)  This process can be accelerated by something that v6 can do
that v4 can't.  So far, there's nothing that fits that description;
everything being done over v6 can also be done over v4. 





More information about the NANOG mailing list