IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 04 August 2014 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07D11A0442 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2cmKp-t-0O75 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 106381A041B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1602; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407194437; x=1408404037; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Jp0BgpcZI+3csJzbNJfYaw2jL4hF6hZGkfn/oRatyZY=; b=AVkgg9T5fyDTF0mN5Irq7/YH0N+SfMghm3azYlXKaezyOZvodMdHMBN3 BxBTM/xEZO/lusW88Qt5fTXFl58OLEwQqZ5IsIMRT6rdRKhgPed1FESUO le6+Gr65UTNQ+3nnPie//gSgwX7HJmZoHH/oOFD/ctCAbFULCg1ijIbLf 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAPAU4FOtJV2S/2dsb2JhbABbgw2BKQTUBAGBExZ3hAQBAQMBeQULAgEIRjIlAgQOBQ6ILAjEOBePTAeDL4EcBZMDgUmHOpRfg01sgUY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,801,1400025600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="345074217"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2014 23:20:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s74NKSTu004830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:20:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.143]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:20:28 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
Thread-Index: AQHPsDqtUGBahh696kmKcfws34zkeQ==
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:20:28 +0000
Message-ID: <DDCCBBC8-8F5B-466D-985D-EBC9A1FBD6EB@cisco.com>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <28BBAD81-F9FE-43EB-BF49-E5B85C2AB218@cisco.com> <20140804231151.AAAEF1B7AB9F@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140804231151.AAAEF1B7AB9F@rock.dv.isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.115]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C23B07A8-4DAB-4F26-9EE5-20E5012325EA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZadGnAyl5oPSlPLOfc_b_0M3DRU
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:20:39 -0000

On Aug 4, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> Azure would still need the IPv4 addresses because the rest of the
> world as a whole has not moved to IPv6 yet.  While datacenters may
> be able to move to IPv6 only internally there is still a external
> need for IPv4 addresses.  IPv6 only gives some IPv4 address saving
> but not that much on the server side.  We are still a long way from
> turning off IPv4 servers.

That’s sort of the point of Tore’s document, with the exception that you can indeed move IPv4 addresses to *only* the edge using his mechanism.

That said, if you have an IPv6-capable data center and are selling it as a service to customers, that gives you a vehicle to discuss IPv6 with the customers. “I have a scarce resource that I can charge you for, and a plentiful resource I can charge you for. Which would you like to be charged for?"

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email