Well we don't yet know that the FCC deadline will actually stick when
society recognizes that many folks of low economic means are suddenly
w/o TV.
Secondly, the FCC's span of control is geographic ... not quite the same
as dictating an end to IPV4 addresses on a world wide basis.
In the low end bandwidth space I play, a extra 192 bits on every packet is
significant to end user performance. As others have noted, it seems like
the fairly effective anti-spam technique of associating reputations with
network addresses will be stressed by exploding the number of addresses
... stressed because the originators of spam will be able to be more agile
and because the memory and CPU required to track such reputations
explodes.
Perhaps by the time IPV4 scarcity is a critical economic issue, the
continuing trend of cheaper faster last mile internet connectivity as
well as server system capability cost reductions will converge... or
perhaps some combination of legal and techical solutions will push spam
into the noise level. Etc.
Dave Morris
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
From: David Morris [mailto:dwm(_at_)xpasc(_dot_)com]
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
I think the thing that would help IPv6 the most would be the setting
of a
hard date when no new IPv4 addresses would be issued. This would
make it
real for everyone and ignite the IPv6/IPv4 gateway market (I think).
Not to
mention we'd never have to have another debate over when IPv4 was
going to
run out which might be benefit enough in itself ;)
What a lawsuit mess that would be ... artificial limits would never
work.
I think the US FCC Digital Broadcast Deadline is a good example - though
more drastic than I was suggesting.
I think artificial limits are inevitable unless the intention is to support
IPv4 until there's no one left in the world who wants to use it (and even
that is an artificial limit). I also don't understand what is gained by a
sliding doomsday other than procrastination, avoidance, and a neutered
stimulus. I mean if IPv4 addresses are going to run out wouldn't it be
better to know exactly when? In my opinion you make it real if you give it
a date but until then it's like saying "smoking may cause cancer". If any
smoker knew for a fact that the next drag on a cigarette would give them
cancer they'd never smoke again. If a network manager knew that in 7 years
all new address space would be IPv6 it would become a consideration from
that point forward. In my opinion.
Nick
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf