On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 2010, at 9:40 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
karine perset's work is, as usual, good enough that it should be seen in it's original, not some circle-je^h^hid hack of a small part of it.
John,
I'd like to call your attention to slide 8, the chart showing growth in fully working IPv6 deployments. Should that growth trend be allowed to continue, IPv4-only deployments can be expected to fall into the minority after another few hundred years.
The upcoming conversion of IPv4 addressing into a zero-sum game (as a result of free pool depletion) is likely to increase this growth trend, but it's anybody's guess whether the new growth trend improves to something with a faster-than-linear feedback loop. And of course once free pool depletion hits, the cost to deploy additional IPv4 systems starts to grow immediately, independent of pre-majority IPv6 growth.
In fact, IPv6 is already showing greater than linear acceleration in deployment, so, even though IPv4 hasn't run out yet, people are beginning to catch on.
We might want to consider additional public policy incentives to kick the IPv6 growth rate into a higher gear.
Such as?
Owen
Notify all holders of a currently active AS they have been allocated/assigned a /32. No fees. No questions. To accept the allocation/assignment, it must be advertised within a 24 month period. There is no shortage of available /32s in 2000::/3. There is a serious shortage of meaningful deployment. -- Tim:>