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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 2/8/2011 3:06 PM, John Curran wrote:
> 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.
>

No, I have to disagree with this statement.  A successful business case
only insures that your going to snare a sucker or two to make an 
investment.  What drives deployment is customer demand.  Sure, you can 
build a business case on customer demand - but the demand comes first, 
not the business case.

> 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.
>

I think you both must have extremely overinflated opinions of your own
importance to assume that anything that you or anyone else would do 
would have motivated more than a fraction of people to bother with
graceful transition any earlier than they did. ;-)

The situation with IPv4->IPv6 transition is a game of chicken between 
competing ISPs.  Anyone running an ISP knows perfectly well that the 
ISPs who are later into the IPv6 game will benefit from the burned 
fingers of the ones earlier into the game.  So it is perfectly logical 
that most ISPs will wait until the very last minute to go to IPv6.
They will wait till the day that they get the first call from a customer 
saying that they must have IPv6 or they will quit service, then they 
will think about moving on it.  We see Comcast doing trials now, because 
they are so large that they are probably already getting those calls 
from at least a few customers.  But it is going to take a while for the 
rest of them to follow along.

How many customers out there are demanding IPv6?  Not many.  Only the 
ones who have no IPv4 at all are demanding it.  For all the rest of 
them, IPv6 is still on the "nice to have" list.

Ted

> /John
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.