On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:09:39 -0400 Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > > Anyhow, it might be an interesting topic to discuss in the appropriate > > venues, IETF, "What is the cost of maintaining IPv4 forever?" but it's > > getting a little ahead of ourselves in terms of any pressing need. > > > This is an interesting question. > > In talking to your vendors with your checklist of capabilities a device > CAN/SHOULD/MUST have, what if you no longer needed to carry 350k/512k routes > of IPv4 and only needed 256k of IPv6 ? > > Instead of 6pe think of 4pe with ipv6 core. > > I've been reminding vendors that IPv6 should get new features *first* vs > IPv4. The end of IPv4 is near, but that doesn't mean the end of the Internet > is here. The next chapter gets a new page turned. Maybe we will determine > that IPv6 needs to go the way of IPX/Decnet/AppleTalk and some new system > (non-IP even) will take over the world. > > Either way, it's an interesting time to be an edge operator that worries > about CPE stuff. those that think mostly about core this is a big fat *yawn* > imho. Expect application developers to face some interesting challenges. > me? I'm waiting until I see the "NOW WITH IPv6" sticker on things at the > store. > If you go into the right store, you'll see one. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1470849&p=5#r83 > - Jared
