[ppml] "Who's afraid of IPv4 address depletion? Apparently no one."

At 12:00 PM -0800 2/9/08, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>John Curran wrote:
>
>>Is it safe to presume that these are architectures proposed for
>>new customer connections?  It is hard to imagine an existing
>>Internet connected (via IPv4) site having any reason to evolve
>>its internal network into an IPv6 island intentionally in the near
>>future...
>
>Actually if you recover the v4 address currently consumed by your infrastructure you can continue to provide them to your customers which may by a substantial incentive to produce a network which is subtantially ipv6 only.

Interesting; this presumes that that one's willing to depart
from 'ships in the night' IPv4/IPv6 backbone approach, and
"transparently" alter the transport of your existing production
IPv4 customer traffic...

I'm not saying it won't happen (as depletion will eventually
force some very hard decisions) but it's not the traditional
risk-adverse approach used by the carriers, who loathe to do
anything that could result in even a small percentage of their
business customers complaining/switching/leaving.

Of course, it's opportunities like that which nimble/brave firms
use to gain advantage (and not dissimilar to the recent switch
that some carriers did with production POTS trunks to VoIP for
cost advantages...), and if there's sufficient IPv4 address space
to be to recovered, it could be one possible route which allows
IPv4 growth while also making progress on transition.

/John