On Feb 22, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that >>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this >>> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in >>> operating production networks. >> >> excuse me! > > Hi, Randy. I didn't mean to deny you exist; you apparently do. ;) But in my > sampling, operators with the opinion that 'IPv4 doesn't matter' represent the > minority. Of course, it also depends on how you define "doesn't matter". I > think that ongoing operation matters, especially when "ongoing" means a > continued expectation of both existing and new customers. It's easy to say, > "burn the IPv4 bridge" so we're forced to migrate to IPv6. But it's another > thing to actually do it, when you're competing for customers that want IPv4 > connectivity. > We may be the minority, but, we have a lot more address space and no shortage of IP addresses.
How many IPv4 providers can say that? > That said, we're not forced to choose only one: IPv4 vs. IPv6. We should > migrate to IPv6 because it makes sense - IPv4 is going to become more > expensive and painful (to use and support). That doesn't preclude us from > patching IPv4 together long enough to cross the bridge first. > > Thoughts? > Patching the deck chairs does not change the fact that the boat is sinking. I suggest focusing on getting in a life boat. Deck chairs don't float very well. IPv6 is a life boat. NAT444 and other IPv4 preservation hacks are deck chairs. You can rearrange them all you want. Owen
