Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
that it's death for the ISP to just say no to the long tail of legacy v4-only
sites?

One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP's interest
to deploy v6 on the client side because each new v6 site that lights up on
the internet side is less traffic forced through the CGN gear which is ultimately
a cost down. So maybe an alternative to a death penalty is a molasses penalty:
make the CGN experience operable but bad/congested/slow :)

Mike

On 04/25/2013 07:12 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>         Yes.
>
>         We figured this out and we are starting a program (or a set of
> activities) to promote the deployment of IPv6 in what we call "End-users
> organizations" (basically enterprises, universities). We are seeing much
> lower adoption numbers than our ISP's categories.
>
>         One basic problem that we have found when talking with enterprises is
> that the perceived value of deploy v6 is near to zero as they have v4
> addresses (universities) or NAT.
>
> Regards,
> as
>
> On 4/24/13 6:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> > If we really want to help the cause, I suspect that focusing attention on enterprise, and finding ways to convince them 
> > that address shortages are also their problem, will help the most.