Re: shim6 @ NANOG

["Per Heldal" <heldal () eml cc>]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:17:26 +0100, "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
<iljitsch () muada com> said:
> On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:
[snip]
> > Unless we start now working on getting people moved to IPv6, the  
> > pain of running out of IPv4 before IPv6 has reached critical mass  
> > is going to be much much worse than a long term problem of IPv6  
> > route size.
>
> I disagree. You assume that IPv6 will be able to gain critical mass  
> before IPv4 addresses run out. I don't think that will happen,  
> because of the chicken/egg problem. "Running out" is a relative term.  
> John Klensin says we've effictively already run out because IPv4  
> addresses are too hard to get for some applications. That may be true  
> but people aren't turning to IPv6 (yet) to run those applications. My  
> prediction is that we'll see interesting things happen when the  
> remaining IPv4 address suppy < 3 * addresses used per year. That will  
> probably happen around the end of this decade. At that point, there  
> is likely to be hoarding and/or the allocation policies will become  
> stricter, and people will start to think about a future where it's no  
> longer possible to get IPv4 addresses. At this point, there will  
> still be time to migrate.

Doesn't the above disagreement indicate that IPv6 is incomplete until a
workable locator/id-split is implemented? 

If so, why bother with operational policies and deployment beyond what
is of experimental nature necessary to facilitate further development?


//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/