/27 the new /24
marka at isc.org
Wed Oct 7 14:00:11 UTC 2015
In message <A35FA880-B612-4458-BD22-323BEF66A5BC at matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman w
> > On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > Instead, the followup question is needed=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s g
> reat, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn=E2=80=99t have a=
> nd can=E2=80=99t get an IPv4 address?=E2=80=9D
> > Owen
> At the present time, a web site that doesn't have and can't get an IPv4 addr=
> ess isn't "on the Internet".
It's on the Internet. ISP's that fail to supply IPv6 at this point
in time are committing fraud if they claim to supply Internet
> That may change in the future, but right now this is the web site's fault, n=
> ot your ISP's.
No, it isn't the site's fault. The internet ran out of IPv4 addresses
years ago. Not everyone can get a public adddress. There are
millions of customers without a public IPv4 address that can host
a site because they are behind a CGN which is only needed because
of the short sightedness of lots of ISPs failing to deliver IPv6
to their customers.
> Wishing that the IPv6 transition had gone differently does not change
I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone
pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to
*Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the time
the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. That would have been
just-in-time engineering. It's not like they didn't have over a
decade to plan to do it, It's not like there wern't reasonable
accurate forcecasts for when that would happen.
It was not hard to see what would happen if you didn't deliver IPv6
before the first RIR ran out.
No instead most of then stuck their heads in the sand and said "we
have enough IPv4 addresses" without looking at whom they need to
> Matthew Kaufman
> (Sent from my iPhone)
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG