Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
>> slow long pain versus one major sharp pain.
> Or boiling the frog...
frogs may be neurologically primitive, but they're not *that*
primitive.
>> but the slow long approach would seem to encourage sick half-
>> solutions, such as (even more) massive nat deployment etc.
>
> To be honest, I'm having some difficulty imagining realistic
> scenarios of future Internet growth that do not require (even
> more) massive deployment of NAT. If for no other reason than
> IPv6-only sites (since folks won't be able to get IPv4 addresses)
> communicating with IPv4 sites (i.e., the vast majority of the
> Internet).
>
> I'm not sure I see how a major sharp pain would reduce the need
> for (even more) massive deployment of NAT. At least with slow
> long pain, there is more of a chance that folks will finish
> deploying the parallel IPv6 Internet so massive NATing isn't as
> necessary...
i can accept that. in fact, i can even see a universe where there
is v4/v4 address translation between major isps and forget v6; sean
doran may be first to publicly propose this some years back.
but my point was that this trade-off space has far less destructive
consequences than the proposal of a reserve.
randy