[138182] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Feb 28 19:04:30 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <E7E077D4-079C-4B5D-B32F-0BEA7E8B95B2@hopcount.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:00:16 -0800
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> 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.
>=20
Ready or not, IPv6-only (or reasonably IPv6-only) residential customers =
are less than 2 years out, so, well within
your 5-year planning horizon, whether those ISPs see that or not. Denial =
is an impressive human phenomenon.
> So, what's a reasonable target for the next five years?
>=20
In five years we should be just about ready to start deprecating IPv4, =
if not already beginning to do so.
> 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.
>=20
Icky, but, probably necessary for some fraction of users. Ideally, we =
try to avoid these multi-NAT areas being
done in such a way that the end user in question doesn't also have =
reasonably clean IPv6 connectivity.
> 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.
>=20
This is, IMHO, preferable to option 1.
> 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.
>=20
Personally, I think DS-Lite is the cleanest solution, but, it isn't =
without its issues. The reality is that post-runout
IPv4 is going to be ugly, regardless of whether it's NAT64 ugliness, LSN =
ugliness, or DS-LITE ugliness.
IPv4 is all about which flavor of bitter you prefer at this point. The =
sweetness is all on IPv6.
> 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.
>=20
The majority of the problem space IMHO is end-user-space at ISPs that =
have put at least some dual-stack
research effort in, but, haven't come to solutions for end-users.
However, we're less than 2 years away from seeing what happens in those =
environments without IPv4.
Owen
