[124240] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher LILJENSTOLPE)
Fri Mar 26 20:00:23 2010
From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl@asgaard.org>
In-Reply-To: <C0158886-F3E6-465D-90D7-11DBBB10E3AE@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:59:37 +1100
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Greetings Owen,
The only problem is that there will be a number of devices that =
the eyeballs like that won't ever see an IPv6 packet (specifically =
thinking about the CE devices in the home). As such, it won't be IPv6 =
only, it will be dual-stack. Eventually we won't be able to give that =
eyeball's NAT box a unique address, then the proliferation of state =
begins....
Chris
On 27 Mar 2010, at 08.42 , Owen DeLong wrote:
> Dave,
> It's clear we disagree about what will happen in an obviously
> unpredictable future. I think that eyeball networks will deploy IPv6
> rapidly due to the high costs of attempting to continue to hack IPv4.
> You believe that something else will happen. In time, we will see
> which of us turns out to be more correct. We can look at it in
> hindsight over drinks in about 5 years or so.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Dave Israel wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 3/26/2010 1:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>>=20
>>> You should ask your server guy how he plans to talk to your core
>>> stakeholders when they can't get IPv4 any more.
>>=20
>> Then, at that time, both he and his key stakeholders will experience
>> pain while they both deploy IPv6, or more likely, his key =
stakeholders
>> will add another level of NAT-like indirection to give themselves =
space
>> to expand with the address pool they have.
>>=20
>>>> At the CxO level, it's all about the money. Or the lack therof.
>>>>=20
>>> How much less money will you have when donors can not reach your
>>> website or have a poor user experience doing so?
>>=20
>> This assumption is incorrect. "They can't keep nursing IPv4 forever.=20=
>> Eventually everybody will have to switch to v6. If you don't, you'll =
be
>> sorry. Just wait and see." That attitude did not force any previous
>> supposed IPv4-killer protocol to be deployed. The fact is, for the
>> foreseeable future, his donors will tend to have a better experience
>> over v4 than v6. He isn't going to be blindsided by the need to =
deploy
>> v6, and he knows it. By the time an important v4 host is not =
reachable
>> via the entire internet (and at full speed), v6 will have been
>> everywhere for years.
>>=20
>> An address space crisis will not result in v6 deployment from =
repentant
>> network engineers who did not see the light in time. An address =
space
>> crisis will merely result in more hacks to keep v4 running longer. =
v6
>> will be deployed slowly by the curious, encouraged by features v6 has
>> that they want and with the assumption that they will still be able =
to
>> do everything they can do on v4 (either through translation or dual
>> stacking.) This process can be accelerated by something that v6 can =
do
>> that v4 can't. So far, there's nothing that fits that description;
>> everything being done over v6 can also be done over v4.=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
- ---
=E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLrUppAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/k30IAIv4rBRUbpWpFt7g5aXj5Jdh
BfT7vKZp20Ho4O4IPPu5gqF1w5m/PWAsdyyuD+seUaVx/r6+KQbS5cLuErt+RXtb
nZShLBjmXRusuJaz6Wj9ydTPaCZ0YdAC+drLLVN+7ogyoLpk3bp8JYf9nA66eHV5
BvaepyWOO47Fl2jG18Zds/xuPDlx9wTTi/fdeJiPAfLMFUKyMhoooFbqZXYd1Go4
tZVZWShvD8WOSiCnBr746WiuUpsqzpk0UPD+fmkciMkLEC3kCCJlRg0ak0O/SSlC
nl8DgMk/ADY421ilZpUs27NwrpjOd8AXMgXoDhmeZ4q7HyH7KqqVrBlWrWuYe6Q=3D
=3DELTE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
