On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:10 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:52:32PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote: >> On 10/21/2010 10:48 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: >>> >>> not so much - it runs on linux instead of a closed OS. >> I think you missed the point. Many are waiting for it to be supported on >> their brand of routers. Not everyone has huge numbers of servers sitting >> around acting as translation gateways (or spying on traffic). > > true dat. but there was also a subtext on CPE kit. > > not all of us are big telcos or buy IP service from same. > > to paraphrase Dave, if ATT decides to drop IPv4 support, > sigh its a pita, but I don't -NEED- ATT IP services. > I can get much/most of what I want/need w/ a little work/elbow > greese. > > if the goal was to scare people w/ a very public "retirement" date > for IPv4 - then maybe it worked. As for me, the retirement date > was a year or so back. No worries here. > > if folks fit the model described above, the rock is new/untested > code (IPv6 support) and the hard place is NAT (still going to need > it in a mixed v4/v6 world) ... If there are NAT functions w/ > tested code paths that have already passed QA, then that becomes > an easier sell to mgmt - no? > > And ATT realises that 99.982% of its customers > could care less if its IPv4 or IPv6 or IPX... They just know > (cause ATT told them) that the Internet grew out of the World > Wide Web... and that is what they need with their i[fone/pad/pod/tv]. > > ATT will find a way to keep its costs down and provide the functionality > demanded by its customers.
It seems to me that it would be very scary for AT&T for AT&T to say, "we will shut off IPv4 in X years, prepare now" - what if provider X starts running ads saying "AT&T doesn't want your business, but we do and will keep you happy." So, unless one provider really becomes dominate in 10-15 years, I don't see that happening. If providers X, Y and Z band together to do this, I see anti-Trust issues (although IANAL). I can't see an SDO like the IETF doing this (and the IETF is not immune to anti-trust, either). So, if we go down this road, the only real path I see involves some government (US, EU, maybe in 15 years even the PRC) or some set of governments mandating it. Whether that would be a good thing is left as an exercise to the reader. Regards Marshall >> >> >> Jack > >
