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.

On of the best parts of her presentation: "Government’s role *is not about regulation*, but about working with technical experts and business to: •Role 1: Build awareness of issue & help to ease bottlenecks through multi-stakeholder co-operation. •Role 2: Being early adopters. •Role 3: International co-operation and helping to monitor progress of deployment." Will they get it any day ? Regards Jorge

You should have seen the CNN experiment on cyber attack...

you mean the failed chertoff/cheney wanna make the news clueless crap? puhleeze! the fcc has more guns than that mob had clue. randy

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.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/8/44961688.pdf

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. We might want to consider additional public policy incentives to kick the IPv6 growth rate into a higher gear. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

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.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/8/44961688.pdf

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:>

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

I'm puzzled as to why you might think that this would incentivise meaningful deployment of ipv6.

Nick

It removes the hurdle of working with the RIR and/or getting management buy-in to go negotiate for number resources. (Our personal experience as a community/end-user network is that ARIN wants justification for the minimum address space one can live with. At this early stage of deployment, that raises concerns over whether we have a workable address plan in place. We worked with ARIN to eventually get a /41 assigned. With the prospect of assigning /56s to every customer port we have on an edge switch, that's not going to last long. You can probably argue we got the initial request wrong, but it still means we have to go back and negotiate again, which we haven't found to be much fun. That's holding us back.) -- Tim:>