[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Thu Jan 20 21:26:09 EST 2011

On 1/20/11 18:36 CST, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> On 1/20/11 7:00 PM, "David Farmer"<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
> One other interesting point, and thanks for posting Sam's slides, I forgot
> about these.
>> http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/presentations/Wednesday/NANOG50.Talk41.Weil.
>> draft-shared_ARIN.pdf
> See slide 3. Line 3. NCP to IPv4 = FLASH CUT. Granted, it was a lot smaller
> net then, but there was no transition and no chance. We've already proved
> once (Kflex v. V90) that dual technology is bad, and dual stacking et. Al.
> is going to be worse.

By comparison to what the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 has been and will 
be, the transition from NCP to IPv4 was a FLASH CUT for sure.  However, 
I believe it was more like a year long transition process with a 
DROP-DEAD date at the end, January 1, 1983, to turn off NCP.

An FCC staff working paper that came out recently "Potential Impacts on 
Communications from IPv4 Exhaustion & IPv6 Transition" includes a 
section on the NCP to IPv4 transition. This paper is not to bad for the 
pointy-haired-boss set over all, if you haven't seen it go take a look.


Then there is the mother source from John Postel himself, "NCP/TCP 


If only the transition to IPv6 could be that easy. :)

Hey, we COULD all agree to turn off IPv4 30 years to the day on January 
1, 2013, it might not be a bad plan. :)

Possible, but probably not likely. :(

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list