[182395] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Thu Jul 16 00:08:33 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'Joe Maimon'" <jmaimon@ttec.com>, "'Jared Mauch'" <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <55A6F740.3000602@ttec.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:08:16 -0700
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Joe Maimon wrote:
> Jared Mauch wrote:
>=20
> >
> > This isn=E2=80=99t really a giant set of naysayers IMHO, but there =
is enough
> embedded logic in devices that it doesn=E2=80=99t make that much =
sense.
>=20
> Enough to scuttle all previous drafts.
>=20
> > linux
>=20
> a little google comes up with this
>=20
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/866043
>=20
> It defies reason to compare that kind of update to ipv6.
>=20
> > various *bsd flavors
>=20
> > That effort would need to have everyone moving in the same direction
> now which seems unlikely.
> >
> > - Jared
>=20
> All I ever wanted to see was that the (minimal) effort was made =
possible.
> No guarantee of its success should be required for that. Even now.
>=20
> Because by doing so, you guarantee failure.
Joe,=20
It appears you are asking for the world to sanction your local efforts. =
There is nothing stopping you from deploying and using that space if you =
can. Asking for a change in the standards status though will only lead =
to confusion and anguish. If 15 years ago it had been, or would now be =
changed to unicast, people would expect to be able to use it as they use =
the rest of the space. Those with access to source for all their devices =
could accomplish that, but everyone else would have to beat on vendors =
and wait an indeterminate time to get usable code, and that still would =
not fix rom based devices. On the other hand people with source don't =
need any standards change, they can just turn it on.=20
If you want the additional effort to manage a global distribution of the =
space so it is not just an extension of 1918, then you have to =
acknowledge that it would only last a few weeks at best. While ARIN =
managed to change policy and slow things down, when APnic flamed out =
they burned through 6 /8's in 8 weeks and were accelerating, while Ripe =
was burning through one every 3 months, and Lacnic was accelerating =
through their last one over 4 months. So ignoring pent up demand since =
they have all been out for awhile now, and assuming that they space was =
generically usable, you get 8 weeks tops. Recognizing that they are not =
generically usable though it will likely take quite a bit longer than =
that.=20
This is not being a naysayer, it is simply presenting issues that have =
been raised and considered many times over the last 15 years. There is a =
lot of work to make that space usable, and as you pointed out above the =
smallest part of that is the code change. In the context of the amount =
of work required in relation to the few weeks of gain that would result, =
it has always been difficult to establish much interest. At the end of =
the day it is not that much more work to fix all the devices to run =
IPv6. At that point you have no limitations, while 240/4 still leads to =
the place where the IPv4 pool is exhausted.=20
Tony
