Mexico to Stop IPv4 Address Assignments Starting 2011

[Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino]

>CERNET2, certain parts of the US Army, among others. I get this in  
>v6ops in the form of "we want to turn off IPv4 and still carry IPv4  
>traffic, let's build a transition strategy"; you can probably guess  
>my standing reply.
>
>There is a certain sense in which it makes sense; if like many of my  
>customers you are planning an IPv6 address space request because  
>there isn't adequate capacity for your IPv4 plans, the next question  
>is "how do my IPv6 customers talk with my IPv4 customers". My  
>standard response is "if it is important the the latter, have them  
>turn up IPv6 in parallel with their IPv4". I do get asked, though,  
>why not simply convert them to IPv6 and turn down IPv4.
>
>I'm not that much of a zealot.

	same here.

	i always tell people:
	- if there's existing IPv4 network, regardless from NAT-based or
	  global address: deploy IPv6 additionally on top of IPv4 so that
	  you can use IPv6 in the near future
	- if there's no existing IPv4 network, it fits into 10.0.0.0/8,
	  and they can spend $$$ on gigantic NAT box:
	  deploy NAT-based IPv4 network and IPv6 network
	- if it is new and huge: deploy IPv6-only network with NAT-PT/RFC3142/
	  whatever

itojun