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

[John Curran]

On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> 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. ;-)

Since we didn't give anyone a reason to deploy it any sooner than
they absolutely had to, you are correct.  If we actually had made
it easier to deploy and provided some benefit, who knows...

> 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.

Exactly my point.  No customer demand equals no deployment till the
last minute.

/John