Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion

Doug Barton dougb at
Mon Nov 21 09:10:31 CET 2011

On 11/20/2011 23:49, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 11:22 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 11/20/2011 23:13, Matija Grabnar wrote:
>>> Well "the users don't want end-to-end" is an appeal to authority,
>>> too.
>> Sure, you can look at it that way if you want to. My actual intention is
>> to get the IPv6 kool-aid drinkers to look at what people have been
> IPv6 isn't kool-aid.  That IPv4 has run out is a fact.  That IPv6 has
> been designed to replace it is also a fact. 

Well IPv4 isn't done yet, but you're right about IPv6 being designed to
replace it. Meanwhile, the kool-aid I'm referring to is the idea that
because IPv6 is the right answer means that it will prevail. It's not
even the only answer available, and most Internet users are years away
from feeling the impact of the IPv4 run-out.

>> No, it isn't. And this is a key point. The question is, what solutions
>> will corporate IT administrators accept, and why?
> Most corporate IT administrators are reactive and not pro-active. 

I could argue with some of the remainder of what you wrote, but I think
you're dead on with this bit. For the vast majority of corporate IT
departments there are absolutely no external forces pushing IPv6 for
them to react to. If you're like most of them you have a perfectly fine
internal IPv4 network which is NAT'ed to your ISP's PA space. The IPv4
network isn't going away, and it will likely be decades before providers
put up content that is visible on IPv6 only.

The only people that *need* IPv6 are those that want to grow.

Doug (ah, trumpet winsock, those were the days)


		"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
		"Too practical."

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list