On Sep 25, 2011, at 2:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 25, 2011 13:25 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Remembering that an ISP who wants to avoid the use of public
IPv4 addresses on its backbone/infrastructure has the option
of simply converting that infrastructure to IPv6, tunneling
public-address IPv4 packets (both its own and those of its
customers) over that IPv6 infrastructure using a tunneling
approach of its choice. Longer-term, that approach makes the
ISP far more IPv6-ready, while "more private/shared IPv4
space" is just another dead end.
Yes, but even if it does this (and I agree that it's a
strategy well worth considering) that ISP is going to need
IPv4 addresses to assign to its customers until the customers
migrate to IPv6.
So? I was sort of assuming that an ISP who was aggressive about
converting their internal infrastructure would be freeing up
public IPv4 addresses for endpoint and boundary use in fairly
large quantities. Renumbering shouldn't be a lot harder than,
well, renumbering.
My assumption is that most ISPs are already using RFC 1918 for internal
infrastructure whenever possible in order to free up more public IPv4 addresses
to assign to customers. At least, I hope that's the case.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf