North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Thu Mar 02 16:45:37 2006 
On 2-mrt-2006, at 22:27, Owen DeLong wrote:
One thing is very certain: today, a lot of people who have their own PI
or even PA block with IPv4, don't qualify for one with IPv6. While it's
certainly possible that the rules will be changed such that more people
can get an IPv6 PI or PA block, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that this will
become as easy as with IPv4.


Possibly, but, if that is true, then, to that extent, it will delay or
prevent the adoption of IPv6 by those people.




I agree that this is a possibility.



So I guess we'll have to choose between an IPv6 that's better than
IPv4 but people don't want it, or an IPv6 that people want but it has
the same inherent problems as IPv4. Hm...




Ergo: some people who multihome with BGP in IPv4 today won't be
able to

do the same with IPv6. And if you manage to get a PI or PA block you

will very likely find that deaggregating won't work nearly as
well with

IPv6 as it does with IPv4.




And why would those people consider migrating to IPv6?




Because they can't get IPv4 addresses or so many other people use
IPv6 (because _they_ can't get IPv4 addresses) that communicating
with them natively is important.



But today there are still enough IPv4 addresses (I just checked: we
still have 1444.12 million addresses or 86.08 /8s) so that won't
happen for a few more years.




So learn to love shim6 or help create something better. Complaining
isn't going to solve anything.





I'm trying to create something better.  I doubt many people in the
operational community will ever learn to love shim6.



Stranger things have happened. Some people actually like NAT...