[138173] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Mon Feb 28 18:04:13 2011
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <635A2019-3CDF-47D4-9079-5C2282131849@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:03:21 -0500
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2011-02-28, at 17:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>=20
>> On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:
>>=20
>>> o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
>>> of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
>>> better be able to stand on its own.
>>=20
>> Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to =
be able to stand on its own two feet? Because I wasn't; that's patently =
absurd.
>>=20
>=20
> It is both absurd and pretty much exactly what you said.
Well, you misunderstood what I meant, which I'm sure is my own fault. =
I'm sure my view of the world is warped and unnatural, too, but most of =
you know that already. :-)
To me, delivering IPv6 to residential Internet users is the largest =
missing piece of the puzzle today. Those users generally have no =
technical support beyond what they can get from the helpdesk, and the =
race to the bottom has ensured that (a) the helpdesk isn't of a scale to =
deal with pervasive connectivity problems and (b) any user that spends =
more than an hour on the phone has probably burnt any profit he/she =
might have generated for the ISP that year, and hence anything that is =
likely to trigger that kind of support burden is either going to result =
in customers leaving, bankruptcy or both.
Small (say, under 50,000 customer) ISPs in my experience have a planning =
horizon which is less than five years from now. Anything further out =
than that is not "foreseeable" in the sense that I meant it. I have much =
less first-hand experience with large, carrier-sized ISPs and what I =
have is a decade old, so perhaps the small ISP experience is not =
universal, but I'd be somewhat surprised giving the velocity of the =
target and what I perceive as substantial inertia in carrier-sized ISPs =
whether there's much practical difference.
So, what's a reasonable target for the next five years?
1. Deployed dual-stack access which interact nicely with consumer CPEs =
and electronics, the IPv4 side of the stack deployed through increased =
use of NAT when ISPs run out of numbers.
2. IPv6-only access, CPE and hosts, with some kind of transition =
mechanism to deliver v4-only content (from content providers and v4-only =
peers) to the v6-only customers.
Perhaps it's because I've never seen a NAT-PT replacement that was any =
prettier than NAT-PT, but I don't see (2) being anything that a =
residential customer would buy before 2016. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I =
don't hear a lot of people shouting about their success.
Note, I'm not talking about the ISPs who have already invested time, =
capex and opex in deploying dual-stack environments. I'm talking about =
what I see as the majority of the problem space, namely ISPs who have =
not.
Joe
