(apologies in advance for extending this thread here rather than on
ppml -- will gladly take responses off-list, or move it over if
responders would prefer to continue the discussion there)
On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Adrian Chadd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As I ranted on #nanog last night; the v6 transition will happen
when it
costs more to buy / maintain a v4 infrastructure (IP trading,
quadruple
NAT, support overheads, v6 tunnel brokers, etc) then it is to migrate
infrastructure to v6.
If people were sane (!), they'd have a method right now for an
enterprise to migrate 100% native IPv6 and interconnect to the v4
network via translation devices. None of this dual stack crap. It
makes
the heads of IT security and technical managers spin.
I agree, to a point. My prediction is that when the handful of
mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4
addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption
in the ARIN region)...
I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public,
authoritative evidence to support this claim?
If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the
product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.),
changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two,
or something else altogether?
Thanks,
TV