|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: shim6 @ NANOG
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:17:26 +0100, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email protected]> said: > > On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote: > [snip] > > > Unless we start now working on getting people moved to IPv6, the > > pain of running out of IPv4 before IPv6 has reached critical mass > > is going to be much much worse than a long term problem of IPv6 > > route size. > > I disagree. You assume that IPv6 will be able to gain critical mass > before IPv4 addresses run out. I don't think that will happen, > because of the chicken/egg problem. "Running out" is a relative term. > John Klensin says we've effictively already run out because IPv4 > addresses are too hard to get for some applications. That may be true > but people aren't turning to IPv6 (yet) to run those applications. My > prediction is that we'll see interesting things happen when the > remaining IPv4 address suppy < 3 * addresses used per year. That will > probably happen around the end of this decade. At that point, there > is likely to be hoarding and/or the allocation policies will become > stricter, and people will start to think about a future where it's no > longer possible to get IPv4 addresses. At this point, there will > still be time to migrate. Doesn't the above disagreement indicate that IPv6 is incomplete until a workable locator/id-split is implemented? If so, why bother with operational policies and deployment beyond what is of experimental nature necessary to facilitate further development? //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
|