On 25/01/2011 4:21 p.m., Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> So this is another issue I have with the current final /8 policy; I > think it's a reasonable idea to have enough addresses for specific > purposes for a couple of years while the transition to v6 gets under > way properly, but if either it promotes a lengthy availability of > IPv4 for new content servers (thus potentially removing IPv6 adoption > drivers and increasing IPv4 address value)I don't think the "supply" side (Content) is or is going to be the issue. The issue is the eyeball/access side. Reducing the space to a /8 to allow the eyeball side to continue to avoid the IPv6 issue does more harm.
Watching the migrations and movements and planning going on in the content side, I think it's pretty clear that dual stack is the way people are going. No one will be turning off IPv4 over their content. They're all moving at different paces but they'll all get there. I think we'll find that, in time, critical internet systems (ie. systems where inter network connectivity is critical, like mail, as opposed to more loaclised functions like remote access) will require IPv4 and IPv6 so they can exchange data in the new world and in the old world. I imagine some parts of the old world, like countries that are still buying second hand IPv4 only kit, will be some time off adding IPv6 to their systems.
In this world new entrants will need a small amount of IPv4 to ensure their spam can arrive from [unspecified old world country], and they'll need it for a considerable amount of time to come. However existing players will dual stack content and access. So existing IPv4 holders will move their IPv4 to critical internet systems and use IPv6 for pretty much everything else. They'll end up with surplus IPv4 and it'll be next to worthless, except for reallocation out to new entrants.
I think the losers here will be the folks with large pools of connectivity customers who delay rolling out IPv6 and a few 6to4 gateways. They'll pay the earth for old tech (IPv4), which they'll waste on connectivity pools and will only give them a limited time extension.
I cannot support a proposal that appears to offer a glimmer of hope to those organisations that are too set in their ways to see the world moving on around them, at the expense of ensuring inter network connectivity end to end for critical internet systems worldwide, for both future and existing address space holders.
I do not support this proposal. Cheers, Gerard -- Netspace Services Limited http://www.netspace.net.nz Phone +64 4 917 8098 Mobile +64 21 246 2266 Level 4, 191 Thorndon Quay, Thorndon PO Box 12-082, Thorndon, Wellington 6004, New Zealand