[182432] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jul 16 23:16:53 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:29:48 -0400."
<55A8305C.10401@ttec.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:16:27 -0400
Cc: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1437102987_2257P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:29:48 -0400, Joe Maimon said:
> All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along
> to enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out
> of the way.
The problem is that if everybody gets out of the way and doesn't follow,
your class E address is still *worthless*, because only "lead" and "follow"
result in people updating their gear to support it.
As I sit here:
traceroute -A www.ttec.com
traceroute to www.ttec.com (216.222.148.100), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 gateway (172.30.42.65) [*] 1.572 ms 1.942 ms 3.574 ms
2 73.171.122.1 (73.171.122.1) [AS7922] 12.148 ms 17.771 ms 18.312 ms
3 68.86.127.121 (68.86.127.121) [AS7922] 16.262 ms 21.193 ms 22.037 ms
4 ae-18-0-ar02.charlvilleco.va.richmond.comcast.net (68.86.173.213) [AS7922] 40.610 ms 27.332 ms 27.655 ms
5 he-1-1-0-0-10-cr02.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.53) [AS7922] 34.854 ms he-1-1-0-3-11-cr02.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.94.21) [AS7922] 36.627 ms he-1-1-0-1-11-cr02.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.95.69) [AS7922] 33.868 ms
6 he-0-10-0-1-pe07.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.70) [AS7922] 32.243 ms 16.216 ms 27.123 ms
7 50-248-119-82-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (50.248.119.82) [AS7922] 27.405 ms 33.886 ms 43.109 ms
8 100ge5-1.core1.nyc4.he.net (184.105.223.166) [AS6939] 36.571 ms 37.881 ms 37.290 ms
9 209.51.164.26 (209.51.164.26) [AS6939] 40.093 ms 209.51.164.27 (209.51.164.27) [AS6939] 38.234 ms 209.51.164.26 (209.51.164.26) [AS6939] 38.647 ms
10 noc08rt08-p1-16.noc08.chl.net (216.222.144.33) [AS21719] 46.120 ms 46.462 ms 42.743 ms
11 * * *
12 webserver.ntcnct.net (216.222.148.100) [AS21719] 33.937 ms 28.058 ms 30.344 ms
You're on the hook for 3 boxes. Can you get the software vendors for all three
to *not* be in "get out of the way"? (Remember how many years a lot of vendors
spent playing "get out of the way" on IPv6 support, and how many are still
doing it *now*...) Oh, and don't forget whatever webserver software and web
authoring/management software...
And the 9 boxes in between apparently belong to Comcast and HE, both of which
have drunk the IPv6 koolaid. What's the business case for them to add Class E
support to their networks?
Yeah. There's a whole lot of motivation to get out of the way here, because
most of the path thinks IPv6 is the right answer, and not much business case
for any of the companies or vendors to either lead or follow on a class E
repurposing...
--==_Exmh_1437102987_2257P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=wzgy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1437102987_2257P--
