On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, IPv4 address is becoming an asset which is worth money - either directly (renting it on the grey market - oh, shouldn't have used that - "outsourcing the public IPv4 address management to a third party to optimize the usage of the addresses") or indirectly (by keeping competitors away from the market). So the users and service providers do not have much reason to give up the asset for free - until the network becomes more or less useless, or too expensive to run - close to a complete chaos. And the IPv4 community is today too large that the content providers would release a new service only for the IPv6 community....you probably wouldn't get much funding from the VCs if you state in your plans that this service is intended only for IPv6, would you? -- patte _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
