[AusNOG] FW: [Ap-ipv6tf] official shutdown date for IPv4. The date he is pushing for is April 4, 2024. "IPv4 can't go on forever, " Latour said. "

[Paul Wilkins]

How is it possible to impose an ipv4 shutdown? Across global technical and
sovereign borders? I just don't see how it's possible. The only way ipv4 is
ever going away is by natural attrition. This can and only will happen when:

Cost_Opex_ipv4 + Capital_amortisation_ipv4 > Cost_Opex_ipv6 +
Capital_amortisation_ipv6 + Amortised_cost_ipv4_ipv6_transition

Paul Wilkins

On 5 November 2014 17:32, Mike Everest <mike at duxtel.com> wrote:

> I may be opening a can of worms here, but for a bit of fun…
>
>
>
> I like NAT.  It solves a lot more problems that it causes (for me) and it
> offers a level of flexibility and portability that is a whole lot harder
> and more complicated (IMO) to solve using IPv6.  Here goes: I reckon IPv6
> should also support NAT! :-)
>
>
>
> Maybe I’m just showing my age here, and the usual resistance to change
> that comes with the over 50 set ;) but I am one who is certainly not eager
> to see IPv4 ‘shut down’ – EVER!
>
> :-D
>
> OK, before I get howled down, sure – I get IPv6, and I agree that it is
> something good and something needed.  My ideal future world, though (at
> least while I’m around), will continue to be a dual stacked one :-}
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mike.
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> van den Bergen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 5 November 2014 5:12 PM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] FW: [Ap-ipv6tf] official shutdown date for IPv4.
> The date he is pushing for is April 4, 2024. "IPv4 can't go on forever, "
> Latour said. "
>
>
>
> Last time I looked at IPv6 was circa 2003.
>
>
>
> The thing that struck me most about the protocol is that everyone is
> talking about it as though the best thing is solving the pending IPv4
> address limit.
>
>
>
> To me, the single most interesting aspects of the protocol are, in order
> of importance...
>
>
>
> 1) IPSEC.
>
> 2) automatic routing and discovery.
>
> 3) Getting rid of NAT
>
>
>
> "Getting rid of NAT" is the real problem that is called "IPv4 addresses
> are running out"... NAT gets in the way, makes firewalls more complicated,
> less admin friendly, and leads to lots of daft workarounds to allow end to
> end connectivity that should be easy by now...
>
>
>
> In reality, it's the combination of these three aspects working together
> that make IPv6 a killer protocol IMHO...
>
>
>
> I suspect the main thing limiting take up is inertia and inexperience...
> but I'm happy to be wrong about that :-/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:53:05PM +1100, Michael Biber wrote:
> > Certainly more memorable, but perhaps too far away to provide the
> incentive.
>
> No way in hell IPv4 is going to be ready to be turned off in 10 years.
> It'll probably be "optional" by then, in the sense that your average home
> DSL[1] might not have IPv4 service by default, but I doubt it won't be
> supported by most ISPs in some shape or another.
>
>
> - Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Paul van den Bergen
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20141105/153b2c16/attachment.html>