[arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Feb 22 17:41:26 CST 2011


On Feb 22, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> 
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> excuse me!
> 
> Hi, Randy.  I didn't mean to deny you exist; you apparently do. ;)  But in my sampling, operators with the opinion that 'IPv4 doesn't matter' represent the minority.  Of course, it also depends on how you define "doesn't matter".  I think that ongoing operation matters, especially when "ongoing" means a continued expectation of both existing and new customers.  It's easy to say, "burn the IPv4 bridge" so we're forced to migrate to IPv6.  But it's another thing to actually do it, when you're competing for customers that want IPv4 connectivity.
> 
We may be the minority, but, we have a lot more address space and no shortage of IP addresses.

How many IPv4 providers can say that?

> That said, we're not forced to choose only one: IPv4 vs. IPv6.  We should migrate to IPv6 because it makes sense - IPv4 is going to become more expensive and painful (to use and support).  That doesn't preclude us from patching IPv4 together long enough to cross the bridge first.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
Patching the deck chairs does not change the fact that the boat is sinking.

I suggest focusing on getting in a life boat. Deck chairs don't float very well.

IPv6 is a life boat. NAT444 and other IPv4 preservation hacks are deck chairs.
You can rearrange them all you want.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list