[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6

[TJ]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf
> Of Owen DeLong

> Realistically, the only way the "transition" is going to happen is to
convince
> them to buy new firewalls that can do NAT64 and let them continue on in
their
> RFC1918-isolated bliss.  And, really, as long as their v4-only internal
and
> DMZ hosts can talk to the v6 Internet somehow, isn't that good enough for
now?
>  You do not need to look behind the curtain, Dorothy.
> There's two different transitions being discussed here, and, we need to be
> more accurate about how we talk about them.  I think much of the
enterprise
> resistance stems from the misuse of the words transition or migration to
> describe the first step.  The first step is dual-stacking.  Dual-stacking
> should be relatively painless and should not require a great deal of
> application testing, etc. Yes, removal of IPv4 will be painful and take
time.
>  The good news is that the first test cases for that will be new hosts
after
> IPv4 addresses are no longer available with the possibility of using IPv4
NAT
> as a fallback to back-stop that issue initially while the native
> IPv6 issues are resolved.  Once the IPv6-only new hosts are working fine
> without needing IPv4, then, we can look at removing IPv4 from the
remaining
> dual-stack hosts and finally the network infrastructure.
> 
> So, let's focus on getting existing services dual-stacked, then worry
about
> the next steps.

++1.
Transition is a poorly chosen term, perhaps with hindsight that is easier to
say than without.


/TJ