[arin-ppml] "Millions of Internet AddressesAre LyingIdle" (slashdot)

[Ron Cleven]

>>>>Until and unless someone can describe, in simple layman's
>>>>terms, a rational transition plan to IPv6, I don't see it happening.
>>>
>>>
>>>The laymen have already transitioned to IPv6.
>>>
>>
>>Very cute.
>>
> 
> 
> I have a smartphone, a Motorola Q running Windows Mobile 5 on it
> on the Sprint network.  When I ran the Microsoft networking tools on
> the phone it clearly showed that Sprint has assigned IPv6 numbers to
> it's cellular data network.  When I surf the web on my phone I am
> going through a IPv6->IPv4 gateway.  Ironically, if I go to
> http://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/ I DO NOT see the free porn on the phone,
> indicating that Sprint's IPv6->IPv4 gateways are NOT connected to
> the IPv6 Internet.  What morons!
> 
> A great many laymen have cell phones nowadays.
> 
> 

The cell data networks have little to do with my original question.  I 
don't know how we got here.  I was kind of focusing on the millions of 
web servers and millions of mail servers and millions of routers that 
are currently running IPv4 (many, or even most, of which will never run 
IPv6).  And, yes, I understand that gateways and translations allow them 
to continue to run.  But I do see all sorts of practical problems that 
will arise as ISP's transition their customers to IPv6 without the 
luxury of mapping IPv6 to IPv4 on a one-to-one basis, while, at the same 
time, those millions and millions of servers continue to run IPv4 (yes, 
they will).  Responding to subpoenas and tracking abuse will be a 
nightmare.  But, maybe that has all been solved, and I am worried for 
naught.


> 
> 
>>It might be good for society if lots of ISPs go bankrupt
>>
>>>because they hit a brick wall and are unable to grow their networks 
>>>two to three years from now, just as the economic recovery picks up 
>>>steam. We don't need everybody to do the right thing. In 
>>
>>fact, if only 
>>
>>>a dozen national/regional ISPs do the right thing, it will 
>>
>>probably be 
>>
>>>good enough because they will snap up the assets of their 
>>
>>competition 
>>
>>>in three years and roll out more of their successful IPv6 
>>
>>deployment.
>>
>>I totally agree.  I am completely against small businesses and the 
>>innovation they bring to the market-place.
>>
> 
> 
> Don't be foolish.  The smaller ISPs have it a lot easier to migrate
> to IPv6.
> 

As I noted in a separate post, my "take" on his comments were that he 
was espousing the virtues of having only a "dozen national/regional 
ISP's" remaining.  That didn't exactly sound pro-small-business to me. 
But, I accept his subsequent clarification.


> 
>>Obviously nobody on this list 
>>cares about 
>>establishing simple market-based incentives to get IPv6 moving.
>>
> 
> 
> We already have them.  It's called "use IPv6 post-runout or you will
> go out of business"  Seems pretty much of an incentive to me.

Man, I am so relieved.  I have been reading thousands of posts that led 
me to believe that this whole IPv4 runout thing was a problem and all 
these really smart people have been arguing and arguing about how to 
reclaim and preserve IPv4 space to prevent the runout from occurring too 
early before the Internet world is adequately prepared.  Now I know that 
it is not a problem.  Seems like this whole thread (and a few hundred 
others) are moot points and a waste of bandwidth.