[103047] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (michael.dillon@bt.com)
Fri Mar 14 05:56:36 2008
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:55:36 -0000
In-Reply-To: <B38E85A1-3115-41D1-BC97-0A7BBA8890CD@virtualized.org>
From: <michael.dillon@bt.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon
RadianzNet Capacity Forecast & Plan -- BT Design
66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK
Mobile: +44 7900 823 672=20
Internet: michael.dillon@bt.com
Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030
http://www.btradianz.com
=20
Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/ =20
=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On=20
> Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49
> To: Jamie Bowden
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6=20
> on SOHO routers?]
>=20
>=20
> Jamie,
>=20
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
>=20
> The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that=20
> IPv6 is actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the=20
> IETF have shown). There are lots of bits and pieces that are=20
> necessary for mere mortals to actually use IPv6.
>=20
> > The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled=20
> > everywhere,
>=20
> I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living=20
> that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or=20
> faster than IPv4, doing =20
> so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is=20
> lacking. =20
> What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which=20
> I'm told have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being=20
> shipped) necessary to do everything core routers are expected=20
> to do for IPv6 yet.
>=20
> > and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
>=20
> I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of=20
> Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for=20
> example, that NTT is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but=20
> that is an internal transport service not connected to the=20
> Internet. I'm unaware (but would be very interested in=20
> hearing about) any service in Asia or Europe that is seeing=20
> significant IPv6 traffic.
>=20
> > The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the=20
> > year.
>=20
> I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be "IPv6=20
> capable" (whatever that means) by this summer. If there is a=20
> mandate to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the=20
> year, people are going to have to get very, very busy very,=20
> very quickly.
>=20
> > The
> > only bits that are missing right now are the routers and=20
> switches at =20
> > the
> > edge, and support from transit providers,
>=20
> My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are =20
> missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant. =20
> What is =20
> _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it=20
> results in the =20
> chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request =20
> IPv6. Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the =20
> business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it. Without =20
> infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the=20
> business case to =20
> deploy content on top of IPv6.
>=20
> > and if they're going to keep
> > supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major =20
> > player
> > in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen.
>=20
> Remember GOSIP?
>=20
> Regards,
> -drc
>=20
>=20
