[131211] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben Butler)
Thu Oct 21 13:17:58 2010
From: Ben Butler <ben.butler@c2internet.net>
To: "'Marshall Eubanks'" <tme@americafree.tv>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:17:46 +0100
In-Reply-To: <7E7ABAE4-700E-4C45-A45C-BB0EB39338D5@americafree.tv>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
What is the consequence of not managing to transition the v4 network and ha=
ving to maintain it indefinitely. I think if the cost / limitations that t=
his may place on things is great enough then the "how" will reveal itself w=
ith the interested parties.
Is there a downside to being stuck with both address spaces rather than jus=
t 6, idk, you tell me, but there seems to be from what I can tell.
I am not suggesting any form of timeframe in the exact number of years / de=
cades, just that a timeframe should exist where after a certain date - what=
ever that is - we can say ok, now we are turning off v4.
In the absence of any form of timeframe what is the operational benefit of =
any existing v4 user migrating to v6 if the service provider is going to ma=
ke magic happen that enables them to talk to v6 only host via some mysterio=
us bridging box. I can see none, which tells me they are not going to both=
er spending there time and money renumbering and deploying v6 - ever! Ther=
e needs to be a technical, commercial or operational reason for them to wan=
t to go through the change.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@americafree.tv]=20
Sent: 21 October 2010 18:09
To: Ben Butler
Cc: 'Dan White'; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Ben Butler wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> I can live with running dual stack for a number of years as long as IPv4 =
has a turn off date, much like analogue TV services, thus putting onus of
And how would you propose to achieve that ?
Regards
Marshall
=20
> responsibility onto the customer to also have a vested interest in migra=
ting from v4 to v6. If there is no end data - then all the service provide=
rs are going to get stuck running dual stack and providing 4to6 and 6to4 ga=
teways to bridge traffic to the pool of established v4 only customers. Pre=
sumably the evil that is NAT will have to be run on these gateways meaning =
we have to endure yet more decades of many applications being undeployable =
for practical purposes as stun cant fix everything in the mish mash of diff=
erent NAT implementations.
>=20
> The problem is there is no commercial incentive for the v4 customer to wa=
nt to move to v6 and there is no way for the ISP to force them to without l=
oosing the customer. However, if the RIRs or IANA turned around and said a=
s of xxxx date we are revoking all ipv4 allocations. Then we might be able=
to transition to a v6 only network in some decent timeframe without ending=
up going down the road of a broken dual level 4/6 half way in between brok=
en internet for the next 25 years.
>=20
> You either cross the bridge and get to the other side, or you tell all th=
e people waiting to cross they are too late and tough luck but we have run =
out and you cant join the party, but the last thing we want to do is get ha=
lf way across the bridge and need to straddle both sides of the river.
>=20
> My 2c.
>=20
> Ben
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net]=20
> Sent: 21 October 2010 16:30
> To: Ben Butler
> Cc: 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; Owen DeLong; NANOG
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>=20
> On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered=
,
>> given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
>> presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able
>> in v4 land, then v4 and v6, then finally v6 only.
>>=20
>> I have never been particularly clear how an end network that exists only
>> in v4 or v6 address space is able to access a resource that only exists =
in
>> the other. Is can sort of see some freaking huge NAT box type thing tha=
t
>> summarizes v6 in a v4 address scope or contains the v4 address range at
>> some point inside the v6 address space - but how can a v4 host get to a
>> hot in v6 world that sits outside this without going through some form o=
f
>> proxy / nat gateway between the two.
>>=20
>> Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
>=20
> I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
> start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up? From an accounting and cost
> recovery stand point, that probably makes sense in some environments.
>=20
> However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up
> after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the public
> internet space that cannot obtain v4 addresses and will be reachable via =
v6
> only. That date is starting to become a bit more predictable too. Those v=
6
> only sites won't be Google or Yahoo, but they will be entrepreneurs with
> good ideas and new services that your customers will be asking to get
> access to.
>=20
> We're pursuing a dual stacking model today because we anticipate that
> the dual-stacking process itself will take a while to deploy, and we want
> to anticipate customer demand for access to v6 only sites. We could hold
> off on that deployment, and then spend money on work at the moment of
> truth, but that approach is not very appealing to us.
>=20
> --=20
> Dan White
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
> BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, H=
elvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; =
TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, H=
elvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; T=
EXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Hel=
vetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEX=
T-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvet=
ica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.fo=
oterlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; C=
OLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.=
pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; CO=
LOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}
> Ben Butler
> Director Tel: 0333 666 3332=20
> Fax: 0333 666 3331
> C2 Business Networking Ltd
> The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL
> http://www.c2internet.net/
>=20
> Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc=20
> Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra =
Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48
> This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person =
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are stri=
ctly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmit=
ting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusion=
s and other information expressed in this message are not given or authoris=
ed by the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representativ=
e independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for an=
y data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequen=
ces thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by =
that person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atla=
s Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training,=
monitoring of quality and customer services.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
