Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Thu, 08 August 2013 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tore@fud.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57E011E8205 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dbMzcIsapnFx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from greed.fud.no (greed.fud.no [IPv6:2a02:c0:1001:100::145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F65711E81F8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a02:fe0:cf16:40:b6b6:76ff:fe17:2e83] (port=56417 helo=sloth.fud.no) by greed.fud.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tore@fud.no>) id 1V7UH7-0002bE-HU; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:45:25 +0200
Message-ID: <5203D935.1090102@fud.no>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:45:25 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <5200804D.2050006@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTGL9JVK6egOAVXhMFv77L0b=9eVjKAauwNzLnaM=Mcyw@mail.gmail.com> <52031D69.3070604@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTAJVvmG_byRMW_F2g+WDBvdRLop_oLshgwbUsfBjRzbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJh1q+sJB00yo7HsFifWb=42teg_ga4CjRQVVecU1emcDA@mail.gmail.com> <5203C7E5.3060106@globis.net> <20130808170533.GI65295@Space.Net> <5203D531.1080207@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <5203D531.1080207@globis.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:45:30 -0000

* Ray Hunter

> Who has an IPv4 address shortage *inside* the enterprise?

I do, as do many other. FWIW, these days all sorts of enterprises in the
RIPE region become LIRs just to get their hands on a measly /22 for
their own use.

> And what are these benefits *inside* the enterprise?

I'd love to be able to shut off IPv4 completely, as dual stack means
~dual complexity and ~dual operational overhead.

> LAN switches are written off over at least 10 years in the book keeping.

What does that have to with IPv4 shortage?

Tore