On 2010-03-09 00:21, Tom Vest wrote: > 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.
I think you're neglecting what is actually happening now, which is a (semi) permanent shift to a dual stack routing network with various forms of multiprotocol interworking, including but by no means limited to v6/v4 packet level translation. That will allow the v4 network to survive for a long time, but my personal guess is that it won't deaggregate beyond about a million prefixes, because it will just be easier to grow IPv6 after a certain point. Yes, there will be a fairly messy grey or black IPv4 market and a lot of users suffering from gangrene (double or triple NAT, or living on the wrong side of NAT64). IPv4-only providers will indeed end up as dinosaurs. Funny, really, that it's the incumbent carriers who seem to be at the lowest risk of this. Brian 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 > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
