Re: Todd Underwood was a little late

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Lee Howard <lee () asgard org> wrote:
> > P.S. At this point, the IPv6 transition has failed, unlike the Y2K
> > transition, and
>
> For certain values of "fail."  The odds of a dual-stack transition as
> initially
> envisioned by the IETF are vanishingly small, but IPv6 will be a significant
> part of the coping strategies once RIRs allocate their last blocks of IPv4.

it'd be interesting to hear michael's reasoning behind 'transition has
failed' (to me at least). I agree it doesn't seem like it's moved
along as anyone would (aside from Todd) have hoped, but it is moving
along. Currently the only real alternative to ipv6 at the end-user (in
~2yrs) will be giant-CGN-NAT-things or ... that's about it :(

I don't think we'll have (nor would we have in 2005 even) gotten an
ipv7/8/9/10 up and spec'd/coded/wrung-out before ~2 yrs from now
either. So, given the cards we have, ipv6 isn't all bad.

-chris