[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Jul 12 19:13:26 EDT 2007

Thus spake Davis, Terry L
> Probably yes and no as to the connectivity to the global
> Internet; the requirement for security and the need to do
> business often clash harshly  I just don't see any ISP telling
> their local power company or hospital that they will no longer
> carry their IPv4 traffic.

I don't see that happening either.  What most people seem to be predicting 
is that, at some point, IPv4 service will cost more than IPv6 service and 
the gap will widen as the people who can jump off the IPv4 ship do so and 
there's fewer and fewer people to spread the costs of dual-stacking across.

> It may be true about the difference in "end of life" and
> conceivably the legacy v4 could be tunneled across a v6
> Internet, but only time will tell how it evolves.


> We just have no way to rip IPv4 out of everyplace we have put
> it; embedded control systems are really not "upgradeable"!

That's what NAT is for.  The IETF wants nothing to do with that transition 
model, but the market will want it anyways and so the vendors will ship it. 
You can't pay your shareholders with dogma.


Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list