Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:35 , Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> >
> > > On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:31 AM, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away in 10, 15, 20 years
> > > whichever it is, then they'd of course have to start moving too,
> > > because no upstream.
> >
> > And they would fight it tooth and nail, just like they do now, and if they found an address they could NAT to, they 
> > would argue that that one address gave them the ability to avoid the transition -just like they do now.
>
> Speaking for the smaller providers, there is enough of the Internet that is only accessible via IPv4 out there that 
> CGN solutions are a reasonable way to manage the situation. There is also enough legacy equipment out there that 
> doesn’t accommodate IPv6 that this process will still take several decades.
>
> Edicts never work. More carrot, less stick.

They did with ATSC.

Owen