[137206] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Feb 9 22:34:04 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D531E85.3000005@nic-naa.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:32:21 -0800
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the =
existing {b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 =
reachability as well since those will also be adding IPv6 capabilities =
in the next year or two.
>=20
> so your claim is that to have a .cat, serving registrants currently =
using v4 provisioned hosting services, and end-users currently using v4 =
provisioned eyeball networks, and initially address and resources (but =
not names) currently extant in the com/net/org/biz/info namespaces [1], =
the .cat registry first has to be v6 reachable.
>=20
My claim is that about the time these zones are rolling out, the =
registrants currently using v4 provisioned hosting services and end =
users currently using v4 provisioned eyeball networks will also, at =
least in some cases, be using dual stack and/or v6 services.
> and this claim is true because the webhosting operators, primarily in =
Catalonia, who have v4 now, will themselves be v6 reachable in the next =
year or two ... i think this requires either the existing hosting =
operators abandon vhosting as a service model or abandon their existing =
v4 allocations.
>=20
You do not have to abandon v4 to deploy v6. That's an absurd claim.
> now rinse and repeat for .nyc. the claim is somehow that the market =
for hosting operators (ok, the hosting lines of business of godaddy, =
tucows, enom, netsol, ... and their downstream resellers, which is =
statistically likely to have 51% of all .nyc registrations), and/or =
(your choice) the eyeball network operators for the tri-state area, are =
going to either abandon vhosting as a service model or abandon their =
existing v4 allocations ...
>=20
Again, the need for v6 is not predicated on the abandonment of v4.
> where the v6 ab initio convinces me some is the area i currently work =
on -- developing economies. nigeria is a good example, fewer than 10^^5 =
computers, a population of 15x10^^7, and cell phone penetration rate =
approaching 1 in 3. even so, the number of v6 prefixes in afnic's =
inventory of allocations is ... very small ... for all of africa as a =
region.
>=20
I believe AfriNIC has a /12 like any other RIR. I'm not sure what you =
are saying here.
>> It's not that I think you only serve the future. It's that we think =
you are failing to recognize that IPv6 is now
>> and that what is IPv4 today will be at least dual-stack tomorrow.
>=20
> if the window for applications opens 4 months after icann-41 (amman, =
jordan), in q42011, then delegations will occur as soon as q32012.
>=20
Yes.
> is your claim that registry operators where v6 is _sparce_, and/or =
where v6 eyeball networks are _sparce_, two years from today, are =
properly failed for technical reasons, two years from today, for lack of =
v6 capability?
>=20
I'm not sure what you mean by _sparce_.
My claim is that by 4q2012, I expect we will see much much wider IPv6 =
deployment and potentially eyeball
networks that are primarily or exclusively IPv6 with at best limited or =
degraded IPv4 support through multiple
layers of NAT.
As such, I think that registries spinning up in 3q2012 should be =
required to have IPv6 support. yes.
> if your claim is that v6 is mandatory to implement sometime soon, i'm =
fine with that rather flexible temporal requirement, but icann's current =
rules of the road are an application that isn't v6 ready at transition =
to delegation (roughly two years from now) fails.
>=20
If you define soon as prior to 2q2012, then, yes, I'm fine with that. =
However, that seems to be about a quarter
earlier than you think these things will be starting up. Since you seem =
to be claiming they should get some
period beyond that where they don't need to run IPv6 (I'm not sure where =
they're supposed to get their
addresses to run on IPv4 by then, frankly), I think your definition of =
soon and mine are probably not
compatible.
> pessimally, the requirement is present at the date when applications =
are submitted, that is, a year from today.
>=20
I don't think that 1q2012 is especially out of line given a 2q2012 =
target date.
> now there's still 24 months for icann legal staff to acquire clue, and =
for last week's press event to galvanize operators everywhere, so =
perhaps this (and its cognate, dnssec at transition to delegation) can =
be elided, but it is irresponsible to assert [2], independent of the =
purpose and position of a registry, that it must have a feature due to =
the universalist claims of advocates for a particular technology.
>=20
I think it is irresponsible at this point to consider deploying any =
major network infrastructure without requiring IPv6 capabilities at =
deployment. IANA is already out of IPv4. If you expect these systems to =
start getting deployed in 3q2012, then, you're talking about a time =
which is likely to be well past RIR exhaustion in most cases. I suppose =
they can get a /22 from APNIC, but, other than that, where do you expect =
these organizations to even get IPv4 to work with?
> thanks for your difference,
> -e
>=20
Any time.
Owen
