ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

2007-10-07 00:27:45
Michel Py wrote:
The unanswered question is: are all these tricks going to be
enough to keep operating IPv4. Nobody knows, but almost
everyone who already has a v4 address can wait.

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Well, if in the forseeable future (3 years is a bit short,
though) 50% of all hosts has IPv6 connectivity, I would call
that a resounding success.

Me too, that's why I used "even if". I am glad you have come to
admitting this publicly. Given some private email I have received
yesterday, it appears that some of the most active participants in the
IETF (and/or this mailing list) have been shocked to hear that, as of
yesterday night, less than 50% of all hosts did not have IPv6
connectivity yet.
Well, M$ will eventually fix Vista and it will eventually become
popular; nothing to worry about :-D


(I'll even take 25 or even 10 % or whatever is enough to make most
ISPs deploy IPv6 in their networks.)

That percentage is a heck of an interesting speculation, and I would not
dare no bet anything more than a beer on it. More on this below.


That the other 50/75/90% is still IPv6-only wouldn't be a problem:
presumably, IPv4 works for them so there is no need to add IPv6.

I presume you meant "the other 50/75/90% is still IPv4-only"
                                                     ^
That's the real deal: if 90% of hosts don't need IPv6, it never takes
off. This is hardly a new notion, but there is such thing as a critical
mass.


The tricky part is what happens to people that run into
limitations that exist in IPv4 but not in IPv6. (NAT, hard
to get enough addresses, that kind of stuff.) So far, deploying
IPv6 to work around these problems has rarely been a workable
option. But hopefully, it will become one in the next few years.

Iljitsch, I like your eternal optimism but please face reality: despite
being evil, NAT is a feature that IPv6 does not have (yet?), and for
anyone who can read this today, "hard to get enough addresses" is a red
herring.

I just [forklift] upgraded one of my old small customers; they are 100%
IPv6 capable and 90% IPv6 configured (Vista on every desktop, Server
2003 SP1 x64, Exchange 2007, IOS 12.4). They have a /28 from {major ISP,
name withheld to protect the guilty and accessorily save my @55} which I
did not ask for; all I use is a single IP. The next thing I foresee
coming from {major ISP} is to change that /28 into a single static IP.
For the next 5 years I still don't have a single reason to upgrade.

<flame bait>
While you're at it, explain me something else: I'm a fat ignorant dumb
lazy American imperialist. Why should I bother if, in 5 years, someone
in a country that I have not heard the name yet has to sub their
Internet connectivity to an American company {which I, ahem, happen to
own shares of} instead of getting their own PI?
</flame bait>

Michel.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>