[arin-ppml] Portable address space vs. IPv6 auto-numbering

[Per Heldal]

On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 11:37 +1000, Robin Whittle wrote:
>   I would rather fix the IPv4 problem ASAP and have more time
>   to prepare a lasting alternative, especially something with
>   greater ease of migration from IPv4, which means a much better
>   means of communicating with the IPv4 Internet than is currently
>   possible with IPv6.
> 
> NAT-PT has been buried and the replacements - NAT64 and DNS64 -
> are at a very early stage of development:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-behave-nat64-00
> 
> Many IETF folks have had unrealistic optimism about end-users
> wanting or needing IPv6 for over a decade. 

Most of that unrealistic optimism originate from the same crowd that
built the OSI-bubble (GOSIP&friends) in the 80s and 90s. I.e. mostly
staff within the public-sector and the closely related consultant
industry. Although they're vocal and often linked to standardisation
efforts, few have actually been active in the IETF.

While NAT-PT has been rejected by purists opposing NAT in general, there
is no universal agreement against this approach as a transitional tool,
as described by the ongoing initiatives you link to as well as ongoing
efforts to implement such solutions. 

Further technical discussions in this thread belong on the RRG-list, but
there's one thing relevant to RIR policy that I find a bit odd. If
continued growth of the net through re-allocation of unused resources is
the no-brainer you claim it is, why haven't the RIR yet performed and
published results from surveys to document it? How much of the
previously allocated space can be expected to be available for re-use
given various conditions (prices and/or political pressure), from either
registered LIRs or legacy-holders. Is it possible to meet the market's
demand for sustained growth for any significant time past depletion of
the free pool?


//per