> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > In message <a35fa880-b612-4458-bd22-323bef66a...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman > w > rites: >> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> Instead, the followup question is needed=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s g >> = >> reat, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn=E2=80=99t have a= >> nd can=E2=80=99t get an IPv4 address?=E2=80=9D >>> =20 >>> Owen >>> =20 >> >> At the present time, a web site that doesn't have and can't get an IPv4 addr= >> ess isn't "on the Internet". > > It's on the Internet. ISP's that fail to supply IPv6 at this point > in time are committing fraud if they claim to supply Internet > connection.
Good luck prosecuting them for that. Along with all the internal IT departments that are failing to deliver v6 to wifi and desktops. > >> That may change in the future, but right now this is the web site's fault, n= >> ot your ISP's. > > No, it isn't the site's fault. The internet ran out of IPv4 addresses > years ago. Not everyone can get a public adddress. Right. Now it is only people who can afford about $8 one time. (The going rate for IPv4 on the transfer market at modest block sizes) > There are > millions of customers without a public IPv4 address that can host > a site because they are behind a CGN which is only needed because > of the short sightedness of lots of ISPs failing to deliver IPv6 > to their customers. I think you meant cannot. Most consumer ISPs also prevent this as a matter of policy. Good luck getting those policies changed. > >> Wishing that the IPv6 transition had gone differently does not change >> reality. > > I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone > pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to > delivering IPv6. Sure, they're too late. Which is why, until there's more progress, a website not reachable over IPv4 is fairly useless if the goal is to serve "most of the users on the Internet" > > *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the time > the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. That would have been > just-in-time engineering. It's not like they didn't have over a > decade to plan to do it, It's not like there wern't reasonable > accurate forcecasts for when that would happen. Yeah, totally agree. Didn't happen. Still hasn't happened. Won't happen tomorrow. > > It was not hard to see what would happen if you didn't deliver IPv6 > before the first RIR ran out. > > No instead most of then stuck their heads in the sand and said "we > have enough IPv4 addresses" without looking at whom they need to > connect with. Last I checked, things are still working out just fine for all of them. Despite the obvious concerns about the future. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)
