On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:47 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote: > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > >> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching > > > > If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened? > > Obviously not. > > I suspect more NAT will become a better solution than migrating to IPv6 > if/when runout becomes a problem because there's just not enough > visibility or providers that take it seriously enough for IPv6 to be a > viable solution. I try to do my part but it's a horrible pain. >
And then you have the hoards of DSLreports people screaming about how they do not have a routeable IP address anymore, which is bad for business, and then IPv6 comes about because the people *demand* it. (although they do not necessarily know they are demanding that -- what they are demanding is the ability to continue having publically routeable IP addresses for their broadband connection.) William
