[arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....

[Stephen Sprunk]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>   Everyone who assumes that moving to IPv6 would be better
> has I think already provided a boatload of arguments as to why
> their way would be better.
>
>   But I have not really heard any arguments from the people who
> want to stay with IPv4 as to why their way would be better.
>   

I think that answer is simple: the short-term cost of adding more NAT is 
lower than the short-term cost of moving everything to IPv6.  There's a 
lot of stuff that _still_ doesn't work (well or at all) with IPv6, 
despite over a decade of work and sweeping claims by IPv6 supporters, so 
the cost of the latter option isn't even calculable because it's not 
possible -- but even the parts that are possible will undoubtedly cost 
more, in the short term, than just tossing a few more NAT boxes into the 
network.

I think everyone is in agreement that the long-term costs of IPv6 are 
cheaper than IPv4+NAT; what we're really debating is if and when that 
transition will happen and what to do in the meantime.

S