[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6
On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:58 AM, TJ wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-
>> bounces at arin.net] On
>> Of Owen DeLong
>> Realistically, the only way the "transition" is going to happen is to
>> them to buy new firewalls that can do NAT64 and let them continue
>> on in
>> RFC1918-isolated bliss. And, really, as long as their v4-only
>> DMZ hosts can talk to the v6 Internet somehow, isn't that good
>> enough for
>> You do not need to look behind the curtain, Dorothy.
The text above is not mine. The text below is mine. It is
they appear to have both been attributed to me.
>> There's two different transitions being discussed here, and, we
>> need to be
>> more accurate about how we talk about them. I think much of the
>> resistance stems from the misuse of the words transition or
>> migration to
>> describe the first step. The first step is dual-stacking. Dual-
>> should be relatively painless and should not require a great deal of
>> application testing, etc. Yes, removal of IPv4 will be painful and
>> The good news is that the first test cases for that will be new
>> IPv4 addresses are no longer available with the possibility of
>> using IPv4
>> as a fallback to back-stop that issue initially while the native
>> IPv6 issues are resolved. Once the IPv6-only new hosts are working
>> without needing IPv4, then, we can look at removing IPv4 from the
>> dual-stack hosts and finally the network infrastructure.
>> So, let's focus on getting existing services dual-stacked, then worry
>> the next steps.
> Transition is a poorly chosen term, perhaps with hindsight that is
> easier to
> say than without.
Agreed. However, I don't think it's too late. I think it is worth
the effort to start
talking, especially to the enterprise world about dual-stacking rather
migrating/converting/transitioning to IPv6.
A small change in words may garner a big change in sentiment.
At this point, I think it is worth a try.