Re: [sig-policy] The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
You make some statements in your document that I think need some substantiation.
I know there are a lot of people on this list who despise NAT, but you say:
"peer-to-peer applications are very expensive and complex to develop when even a single NAT is present".
And then later in the document you say that peer-to-peer software development will be 80% cheaper when NAT is removed.
Given the widespread deployment of free file sharing software that only requires a simple port forward to work, I really think that you need to provide some supporting evidence.
Then later again (page 10) you say that upgrading ISP and Enterprise networks and re-training staff is only a minimal cost. Amongst other similar statements, you mention (paraphrasing for berevity):
"Given that the cost of upgrading to IPv6 is so insignificant...there are clear advantages to saving on the cost of supporting NAT connected customers"
If I am not mistaken, you seem to be trying to insinuate that supporting NAT customers is more expensive than upgrading an ISP network to IPv6?
Your arguments seem a tad simplistic to be honest. Yes IOS, JunOS etc etc support, and have for some time IPv6, but there is a myriad of other devices, software and staff (especially software and staff) that exist in an ISP/Enterprise environment where it is not just a case of loading the latest vendor image, plug it into an IPv6 carrier and it'll work.
In any medium organization or larger there are going to be hundreds of scripts, config files, billing/accounting/provisioning/metering systems, firewall rules etc. etc. that need to be checked and updated (think Y2K) to ensure that they are IPv6 ready.
I wish it was as simple as you seem to suggest, and that in an IPv6 Utopia the streets would be paved with gold.
Unfortunately I don't think it will be simple, and I don't think the benefits will be anything more than additional address space.
Cheers,
Tim.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2007 5:04 AM
> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: [sig-policy] The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've published a document trying to analyze the IPv4 exhaustion problem
> and
> what is ahead of us, considering among others, changes in policies.
>
> http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3004
>
> I guess this could be useful in order to understand possible implications
> of
> modifying existing policies, or setting up new ones, or even just to
> create
> some debate about those changes.
>
> The document was completed last April, but didn't had the time to tidy up
> until a few days ago.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> http://www.ipv6day.org
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy