On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@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 <ra...@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:>