[lacnog] IPv6 Transitional Uncertainties

[Fernando Gont]

On 09/15/2011 12:01 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Maybe, but this is a "what if" which we should consider seriously.

I think this *has* been considered by the community for quite a while.

For instance, LACNIC has been pushing IPv6 adoption for quite a long
time. However, most providers have been ignoring the imminent IPv4
address exhaustion, or at the very least have decided not to deploy IPv6
yet (for their own reasons).

As far as the LACNIC community is concerned, my take is that new players
(and those who *have* made the effort to deploy v6) should not pay the
price for those that have preferred to continue consuming the IPv4
address space without deploying IPv6.

Hence, my take is that the ones that have been in the business for
longer, and that have consumed most of the IPv4 address space, should
receive fewer IPv4 addresses from "what is left". i.e., "have you
ignored the advice to deploy v6? -- Fair enough... but no more v4
addresses, either".

Unfortunately, this is a catch-22 thing: those who *have* deployed v6
cannot benefit much from it unless others have deployed v6 already....
so they wait for other's to move first. (i.e., even if you have deployed
v6, you'll still need to do NAT64 or CGN while most of the world is
v4-only).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont en si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
Web: www.si6networks.com | Twitter: @SI6Networks