[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Tony Hain
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:30 AM
>To: 'David Conrad'
>Cc: 'Public Policy Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown
>
>
>David Conrad wrote:
>> Tony,
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>> > I was not suggesting IPv6-only service.
>> ...
>> > The model I didn't do a very good job of explaining is:
>> > Pool exhausts
>> ...
>> > Customer
>> ...
>> >    - chooses to opt out of IPv4 to reduce cost
>>
>> Doesn't this mean IPv6-only (which implies IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT for the
>> foreseeable future)?
>
>It means it is 'customer choice' to go IPv6-only, which does not imply nat.
>If they see sufficient value to retain the IPv4 connectivity they pay the
>price. I suspect many of them will not, which will result in not connecting
>to the IPv4-only sites.

THAT is rediculous.  Since the total # of IPv4 addresses is very much
smaller
than IPv6 it is simple to build a translator that IPv6 clients and
networks can use to initiate connections to an IPv4 internet.  I'm sure
Linksys
would have something like that available for $49.95 if there ever was a
need.
It will be very cheap for IPv6 sites to speak IPv4 to the world.

The problem is going to be corporate and organizational networks that remain
IPv4
if the world switches to IPv6.

Internet sites that remain IPv4 will not have a problem being connected to
by
either new IPv6 networks or legacy IPv4 networks so just about all sever
sites will
want to be dual-numbered if it comes to that.

The sites that use "customer choice" to remain IPv4 will be the ones with
the
expense to connect to the rest of the world.

Ted