You mean any other than the top 100AS would have their support lines hammered? Yes, they would. But they'd be less than 20% of the world.<div><br></div><div>I am compeltely not explaining my point well, email doesn't allow for it, but let your imagination go wild and see what you come up with.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Paul Brooks <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbrooks@layer10.com.au" target="_blank">pbrooks@layer10.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div>Joshua - that's not a solution, that's fantasy. Any ISP that tried it would have the support lines jammed solid because the Internet would be broken.<br>
<br>
At least many of the top content sites enabled IPv6 leading up to IPv6 Launch last year - how many of you on this list can say the same?<br>
<br>
On another track, I would have expected the proportion of IPv6 traffic between ISPs would have been higher - regardless of the users, if you have all enabled IPv6 on your mail servers like you should have then all your inter-ISP email should be exchanged on IPv6. <br>
Discuss.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><div style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div class="im">
<hr style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt">
<b>From:</b> Joshua D'Alton <<a href="mailto:joshua@railgun.com.au" target="_blank">joshua@railgun.com.au</a>><br>
</div><b>Sent:</b> Fri Jan 25 22:26:01 AEDT 2013<br>
<b>To:</b> "<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><div class="im"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!<br>
</div></div><div><div class="h5">
<br>
I'm suggesting IPv6 *is* something you move to, but only if the top 100AS move to it all at once. I agree with the rest of what you say, and agree that unless the majority of the world shifts to v6 over night, the problems you alliterate to will exist, but that is what I suggest is a solution.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Paul Brooks <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au" target="_blank">pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
<div>On 25/01/2013 5:15 PM, Joshua D'Alton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Forcing all the small providers who can't get enough space to
move to v6, as you talk about Skeeve, won't fix the problem
anywhere near as fast as doing it the other way around. It is
true that it is band-aid if the smaller pockets of v4 left are
simply re-allocated, but what isn't a bandaid is re-allocating
the massive IP space. Imagine moving Telstra off v4, suddenly
we'd have more than enough IPv4 space for the smaller providers
in Australia, for whom rolling out v6 will cost far more as a
percentage than it would Telstra.</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The trouble with this and many of the other posts in this thread is
an implicit assumption that IPv6 is something that you *move to* -
and then once you have moved to IPv6 you don't need IPv4 space any
more. <br>
IPv6 is something you *add*, not move to. You need to add IPv6, so
your customers can communicate as much as possible with the new
Internet. You still need to keep serving out your IPv4 addresses, so
your customers can keep communicating with the 'old Internet'
hold-outs that haven't also added IPv6 to their system. The IPv4
proportion of total traffic should drop over time - but each ISP
will still need to be handing out IPv4 in parallel with IPv6 for
probably decades to come.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Skeeve
Stevens <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:skeeve+ausnog@eintellego.net" target="_blank">skeeve+ausnog@eintellego.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are short term solutions already:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Get your final /22</div>
<div>- New companies can get a /22</div>
<div>- You buy some IPv4 of the open market</div>
<div>- You invest in CGN/LSN to extend the life of your v4
(not an 'alternative' that some stupid journalists
suggested in the last week)</div>
<div>- You roll-out IPv6/Dual-Stack/etc faster and start
shifting those you can</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
For a brand spanking new ISP, try getting by with a /22. Even
deploying IPv6 from Day 0, buying IPv4 space on the open market is
the only way forward for a new market entrant, as IPv6-only isn't
viable yet.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul.<br>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
<p style="margin-top:2.5em;margin-bottom:1em;border-bottom:1px solid #000"></p><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;word-wrap:break-word;font-family:sans-serif;margin-top:0px"><hr><br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br></pre></div></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Sent unplugged</font></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div>