Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Feb 22, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > > There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
> > > IPv6 is the only address family that matters.  Interestingly, this
> > > position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
> > > operating production networks.
> >
> > excuse me!
>
> Hi, Randy.  I didn't mean to deny you exist; you apparently do. ;)  But in my sampling, operators with the opinion 
> that 'IPv4 doesn't matter' represent the minority.  Of course, it also depends on how you define "doesn't matter".  I 
> think that ongoing operation matters, especially when "ongoing" means a continued expectation of both existing and 
> new customers.  It's easy to say, "burn the IPv4 bridge" so we're forced to migrate to IPv6.  But it's another thing 
> to actually do it, when you're competing for customers that want IPv4 connectivity.
We may be the minority, but, we have a lot more address space and no shortage of IP addresses.

How many IPv4 providers can say that?

> That said, we're not forced to choose only one: IPv4 vs. IPv6.  We should migrate to IPv6 because it makes sense - 
> IPv4 is going to become more expensive and painful (to use and support).  That doesn't preclude us from patching IPv4 
> together long enough to cross the bridge first.
>
> Thoughts?
Patching the deck chairs does not change the fact that the boat is sinking.

I suggest focusing on getting in a life boat. Deck chairs don't float very well.

IPv6 is a life boat. NAT444 and other IPv4 preservation hacks are deck chairs.
You can rearrange them all you want.

Owen