On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:10 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:52:32PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 10:48 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
not so much - it runs on linux instead of a closed OS.
I think you missed the point. Many are waiting for it to be supported on their brand of routers. Not everyone has huge numbers of servers sitting around acting as translation gateways (or spying on traffic).
true dat. but there was also a subtext on CPE kit.
not all of us are big telcos or buy IP service from same.
to paraphrase Dave, if ATT decides to drop IPv4 support, sigh its a pita, but I don't -NEED- ATT IP services. I can get much/most of what I want/need w/ a little work/elbow greese.
if the goal was to scare people w/ a very public "retirement" date for IPv4 - then maybe it worked. As for me, the retirement date was a year or so back. No worries here.
if folks fit the model described above, the rock is new/untested code (IPv6 support) and the hard place is NAT (still going to need it in a mixed v4/v6 world) ... If there are NAT functions w/ tested code paths that have already passed QA, then that becomes an easier sell to mgmt - no?
And ATT realises that 99.982% of its customers could care less if its IPv4 or IPv6 or IPX... They just know (cause ATT told them) that the Internet grew out of the World Wide Web... and that is what they need with their i[fone/pad/pod/tv].
ATT will find a way to keep its costs down and provide the functionality demanded by its customers.
It seems to me that it would be very scary for AT&T for AT&T to say, "we will shut off IPv4 in X years, prepare now" - what if provider X starts running ads saying "AT&T doesn't want your business, but we do and will keep you happy." So, unless one provider really becomes dominate in 10-15 years, I don't see that happening. If providers X, Y and Z band together to do this, I see anti-Trust issues (although IANAL). I can't see an SDO like the IETF doing this (and the IETF is not immune to anti-trust, either). So, if we go down this road, the only real path I see involves some government (US, EU, maybe in 15 years even the PRC) or some set of governments mandating it. Whether that would be a good thing is left as an exercise to the reader. Regards Marshall
Jack