[184315] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Underwood)
Thu Oct 1 21:32:35 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1839574643-1443748508-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1916625302-@b13.c3.bise6.blackberry>
From: Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:30:41 +0000
To: dovid@telecurve.com, NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org>,
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Yep. Nat is terrible. Dual stack is even worse for end user exclusive.
Clients that migrate back and forth between different protocols at will
(hello Mac OS) are going to be really challenging for everyone, too.
But we didn't get magical, free, simple migration. So we could have done
some kind of 8+8 or LISP thing but we didn't. And here we are.
T
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015, 21:15 Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:
> Nothing to do with religion at all. I advocate IPv6 all the time as some
> one who deals a lot with SIP. The issues are endless when dealing with NA=
T.
> NAT is an ugly hack and should die already. It will take a few years for
> router manufactures to get it right but them they do it will be better fo=
r
> all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dovid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com>
> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org>Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:42:57
> To: Mark Andrews<marka@isc.org>; Owen DeLong<owen@delong.com>
> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
>
> i'm still confused, to be honest.
>
> why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption.
>
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the res=
t
> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons
> learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet).
>
> so people will renumber their network assets into this new network
> namespace when either:
>
> 1) the new non-internet ipv6 network has enough good stuff only on it tha=
t
> it makes sense to go over there; or
>
> 2) the old ipv4 internet addresses get so expensive that ain't no one
> willing to pay.
>
> right now, neither of those things are true. so people who are adopting
> ipv6 are doing so for two reason:
>
> A) blind, unmotivated religious reasons. they "believe" in this new
> protocol and have somehow managed to tie their identity up in it. (this =
is
> clearly a mistake for an engineer: technology comes and goes. don't eve=
r
> tie your identity up in some technology or you'll end up advocating DECNE=
T
> for the cloud at some point. it won't be pretty).
>
> B) strategic reasons. there are people who think that switching costs ar=
e
> going to be high and that there's an advantage to moving earlier to be
> ready for coming demand when #1 or #2 above happen. unlike A, B is
> completely rational and smart. it might be wrong, but it's not stupid at
> all. put mike leber and HE in this B category.
>
> the only reason people are *advocating* ipv6 right now are that they've
> made a religious choice, which is weird and should be a personal, not
> public choice unless they are great commission ipv6 adherants [1], *or*
> they have a vested interest in getting your business.
>
> the first reason is religion and is off-topic for nanog and the second
> reason is marketing (however well intentioned) and should also be off top=
ic
> for nanog.
>
> so can we stop talking about ipv6 advocacy and move on to the network
> engineering topics, please? if someone is running ipv6 for whatever reas=
on
> and has questions, awesome. if someone wants to talk about addressing
> schemes, awesome. but trying to convince someone to run LAT^H^H^Hipv6 or
> whatever disconnected network protocol they're advocating today? not
> useful.
>
> cheers,
>
> t
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:32 PM Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > In message <4F2E19BA-D92A-4BEC-86E2-33B405C307BE@delong.com>, Owen
> DeLong
> > writes:
> > >
> > > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz@Janoszka.pl>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > >> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to star=
t
> > > charging extra
> > > >> for IPv4 service.
> > > >
> > > > ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many
> customers
> > > will migrate from v4/dual stack to v6-only and ISP's will be left wit=
h
> > > unused IPv4 addresses and less income.
> > >
> > > Nope=E2=80=A6 They=E2=80=99ll be left with unused IPv4 addresses whic=
h is not a
> > > significant source of income and they=E2=80=99ll be able to significa=
ntly
> reduce
> > > the costs incurred
> > > in supporting things like CGNAT.
> > >
> > > > Will ISP's still find other profitable usage for v4 addresses? If
> not,
> > > they will be probably be quite slowly rising IPv4 pricing, not wantin=
g
> to
> > > overprice it.
> > >
> > > Probably they will sell it to business customers instead of the
> > > residential customers. However, we=E2=80=99re talking about relativel=
y large
> > > numbers of customers
> > > for relatively small numbers of IPv4 addresses that aren=E2=80=99t pr=
oducing
> > > revenue directly at this time anyway.
> > >
> > > > Even with $1/IPv4/month - what will be the ROI of a brand new home
> > > router?
> > >
> > > About 2.5 years at that price since a brand new home router is about
> $29.
> > >
> > > Owen
> >
> > The hard part is the internet connected TV's and other stuff which
> > fetches content over the internet which are IPv4 only despite being
> > released when IPv6 existed. These are theoretically upgradable to
> > support IPv6 so long as the manufactures release a IPv6 capable
> > image. The real question is will governments force them to do this.
> >
> > Upgrading the router is a no brainer. Upgrading the TV, games
> > consoles, e-readers, etc. starts to add up.
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> >
>
