IPv6 allocation plan, security, and 6-to-4 conversion

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Jan 31 02:49:45 UTC 2015

> On Jan 30, 2015, at 18:07 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I guess it depends on your definition of ubiquitous, but to me, when a protocol
>> has the majority of the deployed addresses, I think it counts for this purpose.
> LOL, Owen, IPv6 had that with the first /64 ethernet LAN it was used on.

If you want to nit-pick, by “deployed addresses”, I mean addresses actually deployed on hosts and being used for cummunications.

This was a really stupid nit, even for you.

> How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4
> infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no
> longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will have achieved
> ubiquity.

Um, no. The judgment of one traditional telephone company is hardly where I would look to contemplate the future of the internet.

Heck, to a large degree, Verizon hasn’t even figured out how to do IPv6 for FIOS customers yet, let alone their DSL subscribers.

Really not the shining example I would turn to. No. Certainly not the worst, but definitely not the leader, either.


More information about the NANOG mailing list