[1st-mile-nm] IPv6 in New Mexico

[Christopher Mitchell]

The longer we rely on NAT to hide the scarcity of IPv4 addresses, the more
power we give to carriers that are running the NAT - though there are
benefits and risks to having a routable IP.

Christopher Mitchell
Director, Community Broadband Networks
Institute for Local Self-Reliance

http://www.muninetworks.org
@communitynets
612-276-3456 x209

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Michael Harris <mharris at visgence.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On my mobile, so I'll throw a quick poker in the fire:
>>
>> > IPv6 is critical.
>>
>> Is it? There is a lot of hand waving and doom-saying about the exhaustion
>> of IPv4, but I have yet to hear a good technical argument for IPv4 other
>> than "more addresses." Does it offer anything more?
>>
>> I have various arguments in my head both for and against adoption, but I
>> think it is a discussion worth having both here and in the Internet
>> community at large.
>>
>> -Michael
>
>
> The fact is, being the critters we are, we can evolve out of nearly any
> problem we want to.  Generally ignoring "problems" is the best solution.
> Pants in a twist just hurts.
>
> In Silicon Valley during the early days of ipv6 there were lots of
> interesting reasons for it.  Mobile IP was an interestingly designed subset
> that would proxy ip addresses so that you could move around and keep the
> same IP no matter where.  It was clever.  And we just evolved around the
> problem.  Cellular.  Dynamic IP.  etc.
>
> This was the era of WAP, remember that?  I had HUGE fights with idiots in
> telcos about "cellular cannot do IP due to latency and other issues unique
> to mobile". Thus the horrid wap strangled us for years.  Now phones are
> natively IP .. think LTE .. and latency?  Oh that's just tuning the
> wonderfully designed TCP/IP stack.  Sigh.
>
> But thus far, IPv6 has been a marvelous example of the race of a good tech
> trying to justify itself in a world evolving faster than it can.  Cellular
> was one example where ipv6 seemed to fit like a glove.  Not sure if they
> still would like ipv6 at this point.
>
> To tell the truth, router folks are the most likely to want ipv6 as far as
> I can tell.  And even they have such a massive set of protocols on their
> backbone networks, I'm not sure if they're there yet.
>
> I think its really fun to watch.
>
>    -- Owen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/1st-mile-nm/attachments/20141208/55d267eb/attachment.html>