[195128] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rod Beck)
Fri Jun 23 16:58:48 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com>
To: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
<nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>, Mukom Akong T. <mukom.tamon@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:57:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <D572A249.7D84A%lee@asgard.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The RIPE lab tests don't indicate any compelling network performance edge f=
or IPV6. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/examining-ipv6-performance. Larg=
e businesses have huge sunk costs in their existing infrastructure. Top it =
off with conservative bureaucratic mentalities and it is pretty clear why t=
hey avoid IPV4.
________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Lee Howard <lee@asgard.o=
rg>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:09:23 PM
To: Radu-Adrian Feurdean; Mukom Akong T.
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?
On 6/22/17, 3:00 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Radu-Adrian Feurdean"
<nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
>>
>> On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu-
>> adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>> so for the record, business customers are
>>much more active in
>>> *rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it
>>> disabled) or>> implicitly (they install their own router, not
>>>configured for
>>> IPv6). The>> bigger the business, the bigger the chance of rejection.
>>
>>
>> Did they per chance state their reasons for rejecting it?
>
>Not explicitly. But when we get something like "turn off that IPv6 crap
>!" we take it for: - they don't have a clearly defined need for it
> - they don't know how to deal with it
> - they don't want to deal with things they don't need (see the
> irst point)... usually all of them at the same time.
That is my experience, too. When I was in IT, my response was to block
IPv6 at the firewall (until I learned my firewall was incapable of
examining IPv6 packets and therefore allowed ALL IPv6; I wasn=92t allowed t=
o
change firewalls so I used a router ACL to block it while I reviewed our
IPv6 security policy and looked for another job). When I was at an ISP, we
could route IPv6 to the customer, but until they enabled it, no traffic
would follow.
>
>To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the
>resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to
>do it (the education).
I think you=92re talking about business education, not technical IPv6
education, right?
I recently posted my suggested technical reading list:
http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/IPv6reading.html
But I think you=92re asking for a business education series that goes:
1. Enterprise business consideration of IPv6
a. It=92s already on your network. All computers, tablets and phones hav=
e
at least Link Local, and some set up tunnels. Plus, if your employees have
dual-stack at home but single=97stack VPN, you may not like your split
tunnel.
b. Lower latency.
c. Using IPv6 in interesting ways, like Segment Routing, Terastream bit
masking, IPv6 address as process ID.
d. IPv4 runout doesn=92t matter much to most enterprises. They only need
a couple of addresses for new branch offices. Those enterprises who have
their own IPv4 address block (from RIR, not ISP/LIR) should consider how
much they could sell it for. At $15/address, a /16 approaches US$1
million, which is real money to most CTOs.
http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/2017prices.htm
2. Enterprise IPv6 implementation guidance
a. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7381 =93Enterprise IPv6 Deployment
Guidelines=94
b. Cost to Renumber and Sell IPv4
http://retevia.net/Downloads/EnterpriseRenumbering.pdf
I=92ll see if I can write up #1 into a single paper or blog post in the nex=
t
few days. Anything else I should add?
Lee
>
