[arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)
bensons at queuefull.net
Tue Feb 22 16:08:23 CST 2011
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
>> is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
>> seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in operating
>> production networks.
> "most pronounced from people not involved in operating production networks
> that are way behind the planning curve for IPv6 deployment".
> There, fixed that for you.
My original text remains true, because I tend to hear IPv6-only advocacy from vendors and policy folks more than operators - even more so versus operators of commercial ISP networks. But I take your point, that operators ahead of the IPv6 deployment curve are most likely to stand up with that opinion.
Of course, the "network effect" being what it is... Your network being 100% IPv6 doesn't solve the overall problem of reachability. I think your example of 4% traffic from VT is applicable - you will have to worry about IPv4 connectivity, in one form or another, until it diminishes significantly. It's a bit like a tragedy of the commons.
More information about the NANOG