<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [AusNOG] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>This is exactly right.<BR>
<BR>
There is centrally manageable Ethernet CPE available today which supports dual stack - we have similar units at a number of customer sites and are moving to replace most of our CPE with them. Rolling out v6 for us is as simple as pushing a config change when we feel like it.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.routerboard.com/pricelist.php?showProduct=56">http://www.routerboard.com/pricelist.php?showProduct=56</A><BR>
<BR>
They cost $40US and will even do BGP/OSPF as well as advanced traffic shaping and firewalling. Hell, they even do MPLS/Netflow. Overkill? For a consumer, certainly, but their ability to be centrally managed combined with their cost and ease of deployment makes them an obvious choice in the current market.<BR>
<BR>
If anyone has an equivalently specced, currently commercially manufactured ethernet router that has a comparable feature set to the RB750 I will eat my hat. I am not kidding - I will eat my hat and post the video on youtube*.<BR>
<BR>
The technology required to implement v6 on the NBN is available TODAY. You can start developing strategies around currently available hardware TODAY. You can draft a migration strategy TODAY. You can bring v6 into your core TODAY. There may be no consumer demand yet, but one day there will be: don't be caught with your pants down.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Curtis<BR>
<BR>
*I reserve the right to consume the hat in smoothie form.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [<A HREF="mailto:mmc@internode.com.au">mailto:mmc@internode.com.au</A>]<BR>
Sent: Fri 1/22/2010 9:18 AM<BR>
To: Curtis Bayne<BR>
Cc: Noel Butler; ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated<BR>
<BR>
Simple routers (ethernet to ethernet/wifi) are more available to do dual stack than ADSL ones. Let's face it. An ethernet to ethernet router is easier to build and doesn't require the kind of certification a DSL one does.<BR>
<BR>
eg. latest Apple Airport (I mean the VERY latest) have PPP dual stack built in. We've got someone who's produced dualstack code for the WRT54G equivalents.<BR>
<BR>
It's also likely that some or all of the NBN access will be IP rather than PPP (ISP dependent) so that'll be easier.<BR>
<BR>
MMC<BR>
<BR>
On 22/01/2010, at 9:21 AM, Curtis Bayne wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
If only there were some new, national network being built that negates the need for current CPE so we could co-incide the release of ethernet-based CPE that supports IPv6 from the get-go.<BR>
<BR>
Oh, wait...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net<<A HREF="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</A>> on behalf of Noel Butler<BR>
Sent: Fri 1/22/2010 8:16 AM<BR>
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<<A HREF="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</A>><BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 12:28 +1100, James Spenceley wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> >><BR>
> >><BR>
> ><BR>
> > Yep, and I still stand by at _LEAST_ 2015 before we seriously get close to looking like running out of ipv4, maybe longer than that.<BR>
> > There's around 400 million IP's stilll up for grabs.<BR>
><BR>
> and how many phones/computer will connect to the Indian and Chinese Internet in the next year ?<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
How many connected last year...<BR>
4 x /8's issued to APNIC<BR>
4 x /8's issued to RIPE<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I'm well aware that the majority of vocal people on this list are<BR>
supporters of ipv6, I just have an investigative mind, in other words,<BR>
I do think some here are hyping things up for their own agenda, just<BR>
like those did back in 90's.<BR>
<BR>
I mean, talking about ripping off end users more money because they use<BR>
ipv4 like Skeeve brought up, pleaaseeeee, , you try to force everyone<BR>
onto ipv6, then there's going to plenty of spare ipv4 in APNIC's pool<BR>
isn't there, so no problem for the ISP's that wont rip them off :)<BR>
<BR>
So apart from the noise makers on this list beating their chest about<BR>
it, is anyone actually in serious talks with CPE vendors, how about<BR>
retailers? find some cluey retailers and get them to push vendors as<BR>
well, after all, that's where this needs to start.<BR>
<BR>
As someone else mentioned, the vast majority of end users don't care,<BR>
they will not sit down and google it, they will not read white papers or<BR>
RFC's about it, they have no desire to learn squat about it, all they<BR>
want is for the Internet to work, existing customers and in next few<BR>
years or so should easily be serviced by ipv4, it's the newbie from<BR>
nearing then, the ones who go out and buy brand new CPE because its<BR>
their first, or their existing one got blow to hell in a storm that<BR>
needs to be targeted towards ipv6 capable CPE.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<ATT00001..txt><BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Matthew Moyle-Croft<BR>
Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs<BR>
Internode /Agile<BR>
Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia<BR>
Email: mmc@internode.com.au<<A HREF="mailto:mmc@internode.com.au">mailto:mmc@internode.com.au</A>> Web: <A HREF="http://www.on.net">http://www.on.net</A><<A HREF="http://www.on.net/">http://www.on.net/</A>><BR>
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366<BR>
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>