On Mar 8, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> > >> IPv4 is done. Over. Cooked. Fully toast. It will either enter a black >> market where we deaggregate and no proposal will help, or we shift to >> v6 and v4 is irrelevant. In either case, we're not in time to do >> anything significant for v4. > > Probably needless to say, I do not agree with this. There are _definitely_ > more options than DeathI and DeathII. > > Noel
There is also DeathIII, i.e., we shift to v6 (or something else), but through some series of steps that preserves IPv4 in place as a critical, non-substitutable input for provisioning routing services. If that happens, black market-driven deaggregation would not be inevitable. However, any other outcome would likely arise from and/or push IPv4 and incumbent IPv4-based operators into assuming the same sort of (economic) roles that have been traditionally associated with physical "last mile" facilities and their owner-operators... which would ultimately drive every other aspiring new routing service provider thereafter into the same sort of (basically, adversarial) position with the same sort of bypass-centric goals that were/are commonly attributed to non-incumbent Internet service providers, esp. back in the 1980-1990s. What other potential options do you envision which might provide some reasonable probability of avoiding this Catch-22? TV _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
