It might be a market. It might well be something more Darwinian. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:46 AM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: David Conrad; Mark Andrews; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Domain Centric Administration, RE: > draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt > > > On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > >> From: David Conrad [mailto:drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > >> I am also a bit confused how a "dual stack" transition strategy to > >> IPv6 is going to work when the IPv4 address free pool is > exhausted in > >> a few years without some form of NAT/ALG, but maybe that's just me. > > > > Perhaps the idea here is that when the IPv4 pool is > exhausted, people > > will be forced to use IPv6. > > > > If so it comes from the same school of politics that led > folk to say > > 'IF NXT means that DNSSEC can't be deployed in .com that's a good > > thing because it will force people to reduce the size of > .com'. That > > is an actual quote from a real DNSEXT meeting. > > > > Its not going to work that way. All we will end up with is > hyper-NAT. > > And a Market in IPv4 addresses, which will certainly develop > as IPv4 exhaustion nears. > > Regards > Marshall > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf