[158216] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Nov 26 15:41:31 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <C375194F-7A0C-4FEC-BE42-9B71720EC559@arbor.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:37:45 -0800
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 26, 2012, at 04:57 , "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>=20
>> Users do not care and they will never have a "deliberate =
migration".
>=20
> I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed =
in most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is =
some industry imperative to light up network with IPv6. My point is =
that there is not.
There is, actually.
The fact that more users are constantly connecting more devices creates =
an industry imperative to light up a larger address space. CGN does not =
scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow us to cope =
with a few years of transition while there are still devices in homes =
that are IPv4-only, but it certainly doesn't reduce or remove the =
imperative.
Any ISP that fails to light up its customers with IPv6 in the next 3 =
years is at serious risk of having its customers notice that they are no =
longer connected to the entire internet.
Since 2011, IPv4 has been becoming a progressively smaller fraction of =
the internet. Today, that progression is very slow and it's still north =
of 99%. However, there is notable acceleration and given the rate of =
internet growth, within 5 years, I suspect that even if everything that =
is currently IPv4 remains IPv4 and all new services are still deployed =
with IPv4 in addition to IPv6, less than 60% of the internet will still =
be IPv4 at that time.
>> IMHO if the user choose to change or not it is the least important, =
the real important fact is that IPv6 is taking up no matter if it is or =
not deliberate used by the users.
>=20
> I disagree somewhat with this view. The significant question is =
whether the users are actually accessing apps/services/content via IPv6, =
or if it's essentially white noise.
Really, this isn't the important question, either.
The important question is what is the rate of growth of the ability of =
users to access content/apps/services via IPv6?
Further, what is the rate of growth in the provision of =
content/apps/services on dual-stack vs. IPv4-only?
Later, the important question will become what fraction of users can =
still access the IPv4 internet through <2 layers of NAT?
As I said, at current growth rates, by q4 2017, that final figure will =
be less than 60%.
If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of =
devices attached to the network (never mind the number of things causing =
that rate to accelerate[1]) makes IPv6 inevitable at this point, you =
really aren't paying attention.
Owen
[1] Things causing growth in the rate of internet attachment:
IPv6-enabled light bulbs and other small appliances/sensors/etc.
Smart-Grid/Smart-Meters
Environmental Monitoring Sensor Arrays (things like projects to =
deploy literally millions of sensors in the oceans)
Various 6lowpan based projects
The eventual migration of what is currently Zigbee towards =
6lowpan (OK, this one might be questionable, but it's certainly
better for everyone except the Zigbee licensing folks if =
it goes that way)
Public Safety applications (think telemetry-enabled ambulances)
Bio-sensors (think remote patient monitoring, IPv6-enabled =
pace-makers and automatic-internal-defibrulators, etc.)
Home automation
Applications we haven't even thought of yet
