

Interop returns 16 million IPv4 addresses to ARIN - pablohoffman
https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html

======
Udo
So that's, what, another few months? Of course, there are still many other
huge blocks of unused space. But eventually we'll either finally make the jump
or everything becomes the NAT setup from hell, as it is today with mobile
connections. Speaking of which: I believe mobile internet would have been an
excellent opportunity to ship IPv6-only devices to a mass market and that in
turn would have resulted in a widespread adoption effect. Oh well...

~~~
wmf
_I believe mobile internet would have been an excellent opportunity to ship
IPv6-only devices to a mass market_

Some carriers (e.g. T-Mobile) are discussing going IPv6-only with NAT64+DNS64
to access IPv4 servers, but there are a few cases where this is worse than
IPv4-only with NAT44 and very few cases where it is better. So you're
basically proposing to make phones worse.

 _and that in turn would have resulted in a widespread adoption effect._

I don't see why.

~~~
Udo
> _So you're basically proposing to make phones worse._

I'm proposing to make phone worse by suggesting my wireless broadband should
not be behind NAT? How is upgrading this infrastructure worse than the
patchwork disaster we have now? Can you give some examples?

> _I don't see why._

I don't see why not.

IPv6 is lacking critical mass. The mobile space is fast-lived and semi-
organized enough to serve as a vector to push fundamental things like these
through into general adoption.

~~~
wmf
IPv6-only phones would be accessing mostly IPv4-only servers... through NAT64.

I don't think the concept of critical mass is applicable to IPv6. Even if,
say, 10M phones switched over, I don't think that would increase anyone else's
incentive to adopt IPv6. If you don't use transition technologies there's an
insurmountable chicken-egg problem, but if you use transition technologies
there's no real network effect.

~~~
Udo
> _IPv6-only phones would be accessing mostly IPv4-only servers... through
> NAT64._

Not for long, that's the whole point. I postulate in order to make 80% of
servers IPv6 addressable, it would only take a couple dozen companies to
upgrade their servers. They'll do it when clients out there want it.

> _Even if, say, 10M phones switched over, I don't think that would increase
> anyone else's incentive to adopt IPv6._

The number of mobile internet devices is increasing very sharply. And yes,
accommodating this growing segment of users is going to force network upgrades
globally. The chicken-egg problem is exactly the reason why I mentioned this
idea. Mobile device manufacturers and operators have leverage, influence and
money.

