[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition
If the IANA pool had run dry in 2009, the media attention we are seeing this
past week would have already occurred, and CIOs would have already started
efforts that are just now getting underway. The point is that dual-stack
requires sufficient time to keep the old one working, so waiting until that
is no longer an option as the starting point is guaranteed to create failure
There is no one place to assign blame here, and blame was never my intent.
If I had not put out my graph in 2005, attention on the consumption rate
from IANA might have been ignored until it was too late to have any
significant effect on the date, because Geoff's graphs from that time said
2019. If the RIR's collectively had not changed the practice of when & how
much to acquire from IANA at one time, the pool would have clearly burned
down at least 2 years ago.
The point is simply that an opportunity for a graceful transition was lost
because high level attention to the issue was deferred to the point where it
was too late.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:22 PM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 6:14 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > FWIW: IANA would have run out 2 years ago if the RIRs had not changed
> > behavior of maintaining 2 years of projected need as a local pool. In
> > words, we could have focused global attention to the issue with time
> to do a
> > dual-stack deployment, but people wanted to put off the inevitable as
> > as possible, so we are now stuck with the result.
> Tony -
> We've done lots of things to keep IPv4 running, but the RIRs have
> also been telling operators to deploy IPv6 in parallel and get ready
> for the day when there is no free pool left.
> When you say "we could have focused global attention to the issue",
> what exactly do you mean?
> John Curran
> President and CEO