[170021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laszlo Hanyecz)
Sun Mar 23 14:33:49 2014
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140323165726.E2A2F11B18F1@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:30:21 +0000
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 23, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Basically because none of them have ever been on the Internet proper
> where they can connect to their home machines from wherever they
> are in the world directly. If you don't know what it should be
> like you don't complain when you are not getting it.
>=20
It's ironic that those of us that do understand this are mostly the same =
ones saying that it's ok to give 'the users' NAT. The reality is that =
some (many/most/all?) of our 'users' are probably smarter than us and =
they just get around it with VPNs/tunnels just like we do. Just because =
they aren't complaining directly to us, doesn't mean they are satisfied. =
Every gamer with a console is basically screwed - they have to jump =
through hoops trying to figure out how to forward ports or whatever =
else, because these home routers all give them NAT. We can probably =
argue cause/effect on this, but it's all tied together - those routers =
wouldn't have had to do NAT if they could somehow request unique numbers =
for each device.. but now carriers are doing that same NAT internally, =
because hey, 'the users' are already used to it anyway, from having done =
it on their home gateways.=20
It's not that the users are ok with NAT, or that they prefer it, it's =
just all they can get.
IPv6 is far from perfect, but it's a direct answer to the resource =
exhaustion problem. It seems unlikely that IPv4 will ever be dropped, =
but it can be made largely irrelevant by building out IPv6 networks.
As far as the enterprise side of things, many of the people working in =
that area today have likely never known any other kind of network except =
the NAT kind. A lot of these guys say things like 'private ip' and =
'public ip' - they've have this ingrained in them for the past 15+ =
years, and the idea of real internet is scary. I'm not sure how this =
problem of education is addressed, and it might sound stupid, but it's a =
real problem.
The other side of things is that some software vendors with large market =
share are doing their own share of actively trying to undermine IPv6 =
deployment in subtle ways. You can read RFC6555 for the details. Just =
as an example, on Mac OS, users accessing a dual stack website from a =
dual stack host may not ever actually take the IPv6 path, so if there =
are people auditing how many clients are using v4 vs v6 they would get =
skewed results.
I know everyone has their own parameters that define what's worth it and =
what's not, but I think most people's lives would be made easier by =
embracing IPv6.
-Laszlo
> ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their customers into
> thinking that they shouldn't be able to run services from home.
> That all their machines shouldn't have a globally unique address
> that is theoritically reachable from everywhere. That NAT is normal
> and desiriable.
>=20
> I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both ends I could
> just log into the machines at home as easily as if I was there.
> When I'm stuck using a IPv4 only service on the road I have to jump
> through lots of hoops to reach the internal machines.
>=20
> Mark
>=20
>> R's,
>> John
>>=20
>>=20
> --=20
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>=20
