> On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:35 , Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 11, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:31 AM, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away in 10, 15, 20 years
>>> whichever it is, then they'd of course have to start moving too,
>>> because no upstream.
>>
>> And they would fight it tooth and nail, just like they do now, and if they
>> found an address they could NAT to, they would argue that that one address
>> gave them the ability to avoid the transition -just like they do now.
>
> Speaking for the smaller providers, there is enough of the Internet that is
> only accessible via IPv4 out there that CGN solutions are a reasonable way to
> manage the situation. There is also enough legacy equipment out there that
> doesn’t accommodate IPv6 that this process will still take several decades.
>
> Edicts never work. More carrot, less stick.
They did with ATSC.
Owen
