[arin-ppml] What will be the end result of IPv4 exhaustion?

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> this is why to me the most salient of underexposed positions among  
>> those with
>> runout proposals is: do they consider IPv6 inevitable, or do they  
>> think that
>> some combination of deaggregation plus NAT plus their proposal  
>> could make IPv4
>> last forever or at least last until something other than IPv6 can  
>> develope?
>> i really think the community deserves to know/evaluate/choose  
>> *that* agenda.
>
> My own opinion is that whatever transfer/reclamation policy we  
> implement,
> it will simply smooth out and mitigate some of the negative effects  
> of an
> abrupt transition to IPv6.  To put it another way, it makes it  
> possible to
> extend the dual-stack phase of the v4-v6 transition so that we aren't
> forcing some organizations to turn off v4 before everyone else has  
> turned
> on v6.
>
You do realize that's a pipe dream, right?  There simply isn't enough  
IPv4
and time to make that realistic, and, the patterns of human behavior  
to date
suggest that  a time extension will be used primarily to procrastinate  
v6
deployment rather than achieve it.

Owen