[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition

John Curran jcurran at istaff.org
Tue Feb 8 18:06:42 EST 2011

On Feb 8, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

> If the IANA pool had run dry in 2009, the media attention we are seeing this
> past week would have already occurred, and CIOs would have already started
> efforts that are just now getting underway. The point is that dual-stack
> requires sufficient time to keep the old one working, so waiting until that
> is no longer an option as the starting point is guaranteed to create failure
> modes. 
> There is no one place to assign blame here, and blame was never my intent.
> If I had not put out my graph in 2005, attention on the consumption rate
> from IANA might have been ignored until it was too late to have any
> significant effect on the date, because Geoff's graphs from that time said
> 2019. If the RIR's collectively had not changed the practice of when & how
> much to acquire from IANA at one time, the pool would have clearly burned
> down at least 2 years ago. 
> The point is simply that an opportunity for a graceful transition was lost
> because high level attention to the issue was deferred to the point where it
> was too late.

Hah. High-level attention doesn't drive deployment (except in a central-
planning or heavily regulated environment), a successful business case 
drives deployment.  

The opportunity for graceful transition was lost when we both failed 
to include transparent interoperability and then further provided no 
additional functionality to drive deployment.  Reference RFC 1669.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list