On 3-mrt-2006, at 17:04, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Keep in mind that current RIR allocations/assignments are
effectively leases (though the RIRs deny that fact) and, like any
landlord, they can refuse to renew a lease or increase the rent at
any point.
I can only imagine the fun the lawyers are going to have with this:
1. Get address space from Internic, no questions asked
2. ARIN is formed and starts making policies that say address space
isn't owned
3. ARIN never enforces these no ownership policies (that I know of)
4. ARIN tries to take away the addresses
That's the best advertisement IPv6 could ever hope for: "no lawyers!"
So even if it's free, deploying IPv6 today isn't all that useful.
But when you're the last one running IPv4, you'll really want to
move over to IPv6, even if it's very expensive.
Ah, but why? As long as IPv4 has similar or better performance
characteristics to IPv6, why would anyone _need_ to migrate? Add
to that the near certainty that vendors will create NAT devices
that will allow an entire v4 enterprise to reach the v6 Internet...
Don't they teach you IPv6 network design in CCIE school? Once you've
worked with link local addressing/routing and generating addresses
from EUI-64s you never want to go back to the tedious address and
subnet management that's necessary in IPv4. So building boxes just so
you can stick to IPv4 when the rest of the world is already on IPv6
seems a bit backward to me.
Since you can't express the IPv6 address space in the IPv4 address
space (the reverse is easy and available today), the translation
needs to happen a bit higher in the stack. When I was testing running
IPv6-only I installed an Apache 2 proxy in order to reach the IPv4
web from my IPv6-only system. But it worked the other way around too,
of course: using the proxy, I could visit sites over IPv6 with IPv4-
only systems.
