<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 14, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Jesse D. Geddis wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">
<div>
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>To most organizations there is no impact (technical or financial) to v4 depletion. I think that also applies to State's and municipalities. Evangelizing to them will have very little impact aside
from adding an IPv6 address to their source NAT. The organizations in which it does impact are service providers and carriers who rely on address space to light new customers and services.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>You're kidding, right?</div><div><br></div><div>IPv4 depletion means a growing portion of the internet will be moving to IPv6 and may or may not have IPv4 connectivity. Indeed, there are already end-points that do not have access to the IPv4 internet and only have IPv6. This will be an increasing fraction of the internet from now until the deprecation of IPv4.</div><div><br></div><div>Assuming such organizations are on the internet to connect to other organizations on the internet, their reach will soon stop expanding and eventually begin to contract unless they deploy IPv6. </div><div><br></div><div>Why would an organization go to the additional expense of supporting IPv6 NAT instead of just deploying IPv6 within their enterprise and gaining all the benefits that can come from end-to-end addressing?</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div>
<div>To my knowledge AT&T hasn't lit a single residence or phone with IPv6. Why? I would not generally</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Incorrect. I know of several AT&T residential DSL customers that have IPv6. It just started working one day with no real fanfare from AT&T.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div><div> suggest a stick approach but I think it would be appropriate for ARIN to take that approach to
the verizons, AT&Ts, and the cable companies. Perhaps setting benchmarks for such companies as far as v6 </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>You just named the three residential providers that appear to be making the most IPv6 progress in north America. Taking a stick to them (as attractive as it may seem) would seem counter-productive in this case.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div><div>rollouts before they can acquire any further v4 space would be the way to go. I think that would have an enormous impact that would have far reaching ripple
effects beyond just the carrier sector. It would reach into the consumer sector as well as the enterprise sector. In addition it would have the added effect of slowing the depletion rate.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm not sure that any of those three companies have plans to or expectations of acquiring additional space from ARIN. Do you know something I don't about their internal processes? If not, I would say that basing policy, especially such invasive policy on speculation is ill-advised at best.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div>
<div>So if the goal is to encourage adoption in advance of depletion the only way, really, to accomplish that is to make the organizations start to feel the effects in advance of depletion. I don't
see AT&T (and I'm sorry to keep using them as an example but they're a prime one) adjusting course until there is a real reason to. To my knowledge they haven't been provided one to date.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I think that it is far more important to encourage content providers to deploy IPv6 prior to depletion than eyeballs. If all of the content is available on IPv6, then, new IPv6-only eyeballs are not a problem. If all the eyeballs are dual-stack and most of the content still isn't, OTOH, you still can't deploy a new IPv6-only eyeball without having issues.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>