[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Sat Jan 3 18:26:58 EST 2009

In a message written on Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 08:10:54AM -0600, Bill Darte wrote:
>    That is demand for communication services...that without v6 cannot be
>    satisfied, but is not demand for v6 itself.

The ISP's make this leap for the customers.  Much like they have
decided 1 IP is enough for "most" customers and other decisions.

No ISP wants to run "ISP Grade" NAT.  It's a huge cost and hassle,
be it 6to4, NAT646, or any other form.  While they may do it to
transition, virtually none will attempt it long term.  Those that
do will have reams of complaints on various message boards about
how it breaks games, or voip, or p2p, or whatever.

So the only viable, deployable, code that works path is native IPv6.
ISP's will pick that path as they only one they can feesably support
in a scalable internet, and customers will be told "if you want
service, this is what you get".

But, not until the absolute, last second.

       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090103/0ae626a0/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list