[181815] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Sun Jul 5 12:52:56 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:52:52 +0000
In-Reply-To: <2085015272.565.1436113791839.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Mike,
They certainly won't like it. But the situation is the same everywhere. It'=
s not like they're being gouged.=20
-mel via cell
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> You don't work with end-users much, do you? The same types that follow Fr=
ee Press and what not about how their ISP breaks it off in their backside (=
despite no concrete evidence - see the recent M-Labs, Free Press incident).=
.. they won't take too kindly to being told to pay more for IPv4 to make wh=
atever game work properly. It has to be seamless and it has to be free.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Midwest Internet Exchange=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> From: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org>=20
> To: "Josh Moore" <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>=20
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 10:52:36 AM=20
> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion=20
>=20
> Dual-stack doesn't require public IPv4 addresses. Since IPv4 is in short =
supply, providers must still do what they can to conserve them. This means =
NAT, with appropriate management to not overload any one IP, or CGN if you =
want to keep public IPv4 (but no longer unique ones) on CPE. Not every cust=
omer needs direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT; those that do must pay for=
it. If those who have it aren't willing to pay, they must give up their pu=
blic IPv4 address.=20
>=20
> That is the most efficient direct IPv4 provisioning concept we have today=
. Given the history of IPv6 adoption, it's clear that people won't move unt=
il they experience pain sticking with IPv4.=20
>=20
> "On demand" IPv4 isn't currently being done anywhere AFAIK, and since we'=
re abandoning IPv4 it's not likely anyone has that on their priority list. =
It's not a good policy to go out of your way to make IPv4 users comfortable=
. IPv4 is going to go away, and the sooner customers get that and go to IPv=
6, the sooner the pain will stop :)=20
>=20
> -mel beckman=20
>=20
>> On Jul 4, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net> wrote:=20
>>=20
>> Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the C=
PE.=20
>> Consider the following:=20
>>=20
>> An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack wi=
th the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regard=
less of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best practices =
seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If this is the=
case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with the v4 add=
ress depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4=
compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about appli=
cations that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems that there=
should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 address consu=
mption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, solutions like =
this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? What wo=
uld the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be?=20
>>=20
>> Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and=
while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; =
I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate i=
ssue: IPv4 depletion.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Thanks=20
>>=20
>> Joshua Moore=20
>> Network Engineer=20
>> ATC Broadband=20
>> 912.632.3161
>=20
