North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

  • From: David Conrad
  • Date: Wed Oct 03 02:57:00 2007


On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:14 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 7:01 PM -0700 10/2/07, David Conrad wrote:
For the tiny subset that actually want to provide services, uniqueness is generally a pre-requisite, but what percentage of the IPv4 address space is used to provide services?
Uniqueness is a mighty handy property, as anyone trying to implement ICE
to get SIP working across NATs will gladly tell you.

Yep, sure is. Maybe the lack of uniqueness in IPv4 will be sufficient to drive IPv6. But "might handy" isn't "absolute, fundamental requirement".

I think you're missing my point. There are entire continents of people behind single or double NATv4 and they are able to function and communicate. It may not be optimal, but it is workable, particularly for a limited set of applications and services. If we want people to invest in IPv6, we need to explain to them why it will benefit them in terms they understand. There is a billion people's worth of inertia here, so I'm somewhat skeptical that "because you get unique addresses" has sufficient energy to get significant forward motion.