Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

[John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>]

At 9:36 AM -0700 5/29/07, todd glassey wrote:
> > This is an issue for the ISP community, in that a day
> > will come where you're going to desperately want to
> > connect a new customer to the "Internet" via IPv6
> > and give them a reasonable customer experience.
>
> Uhhh OK - but if you built you NAT model right, IPv4 would still suffice for some time to come... making that "day" 
> likely a long time in the future. The real issue is ARIN giving away /8's and defending it. No one needs a fully 
> routable network with a flat addressing scheme these days.

You're going to need to explain the "giving away /8's"
statement...  What are you referring to?

> > They're likely to to balk, and may not even have a
> > full set of applications that work over IPv6, but that's
> > still not going to matter.
>
> Uhhh Yes IT is... with your existing customer's this may break the SLA and for the new Customer's, when they find out 
> you only do new customer's with IPv6 Services they will simply find another provider.

Finding another provider works only for very short time
and then the answer becomes the same among providers.

> > ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition
> > to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting
> > customer expectations.
>
> Uhh - No... ISP's MUST meet their SLA terms and conditions or they will go out of business, and that is that.

True, I stand corrected.  There's nothing wrong with continuing
to operate as-is...   I had presumed that folks investment model
also required demonstrating growth.

/John