[AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!

[Tony]

If those sites mentioned shut down IPv4 overnight, wouldn't all ISP's with v4-only customers just put in some kind of quick/dodgy 4-to-6 NAT/proxy thing so that their screaming customers could access "the Internet" again ? 

It's a nice thought, but I can't see it really increasing the rollout of v6 by much. It might get people's attention for a bit, and attract the ire of SP's, but after that ?


If it was well publicised with a rational timetable to go along with (ie. 12 months ?) and everyone knew they had a deadline to at least dual-stack to retain access to these "vital" components of the Internet then it might have some useful benefit ?






>________________________________
> From: Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au>
>To: "AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
>Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
> 
>
>No but sites listed are representitive of people who would think the net is borked.
>
>
>On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Michael Andreas Schipp <MSchipp at a10networks.com> wrote:
>
>Sites listed was not based on traffic load but how many people would think the internet was broken and demand a fix J
>> 
>>From:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Joshua D'Alton
>>Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 11:19 PM
>>
>>To: AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
>> 
>>No but that is a great example. They are about 5% of the worlds traffic, and give or take they could survive with a tiny amount of IP space, probably not even a /22.
>>On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Michael Andreas Schipp <MSchipp at a10networks.com> wrote:
>>Simple – have Facebook, Twitter and iTunes turn off IPv4 access.
>>> 
>>>From:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Zone Networks - Joel
>>>Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 11:09 PM
>>>To: 'Joshua D'Alton'; 'AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net'
>>>
>>>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
>>> 
>>>+1
>>> 
>>>I think it’s time for a y2k style “bug” in the ipv4 system..:P, 
>>> 
>>>DoomsDays Alert -  change to ipv6 by 01/02/2013 else you will be OFFLINE aka no internet !! J
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>From:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Joshua D'Alton
>>>Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:26 PM
>>>To: AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
>>> 
>>>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.
>>>On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au> wrote:
>>>On 25/01/2013 5:15 PM, Joshua D'Alton wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>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.
>>> 
>>>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. 
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+ausnog at eintellego.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>There are short term solutions already:
>>>> 
>>>>- Get your final /22
>>>>- New companies can get a /22
>>>>- You buy some IPv4 of the open market
>>>>- You invest in CGN/LSN to extend the life of your v4 (not an 'alternative' that some stupid journalists suggested in the last week)
>>>>- You roll-out IPv6/Dual-Stack/etc faster and start shifting those you can
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>Paul.
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130125/11eec0c1/attachment.html>