On Sep 25, 2011, at 2:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Sunday, September 25, 2011 13:25 -0400 Keith Moore > <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Remembering that an ISP who wants to avoid the use of public >>> IPv4 addresses on its backbone/infrastructure has the option >>> of simply converting that infrastructure to IPv6, tunneling >>> public-address IPv4 packets (both its own and those of its >>> customers) over that IPv6 infrastructure using a tunneling >>> approach of its choice. Longer-term, that approach makes the >>> ISP far more IPv6-ready, while "more private/shared IPv4 >>> space" is just another dead end. >> >> Yes, but even if it does this (and I agree that it's a >> strategy well worth considering) that ISP is going to need >> IPv4 addresses to assign to its customers until the customers >> migrate to IPv6. > > So? I was sort of assuming that an ISP who was aggressive about > converting their internal infrastructure would be freeing up > public IPv4 addresses for endpoint and boundary use in fairly > large quantities. Renumbering shouldn't be a lot harder than, > well, renumbering. My assumption is that most ISPs are already using RFC 1918 for internal infrastructure whenever possible in order to free up more public IPv4 addresses to assign to customers. At least, I hope that's the case. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf