[184540] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /27 the new /24
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Wed Oct 7 10:37:27 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20151007140011.18E063A0FA32@rock.dv.isc.org>
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:37:07 -0700
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> In message <A35FA880-B612-4458-BD22-323BEF66A5BC@matthew.at>, Matthew Kauf=
man w
> rites:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>> =3D20
>>> =3D20
>>> =3D20
>>> Instead, the followup question is needed=3DE2=3D80=3DA6 =3DE2=3D80=3D9CT=
hat=3DE2=3D80=3D99s g
>> =3D
>> reat, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn=3DE2=3D80=3D9=
9t have a=3D
>> nd can=3DE2=3D80=3D99t get an IPv4 address?=3DE2=3D80=3D9D
>>> =3D20
>>> Owen
>>> =3D20
>>=20
>> At the present time, a web site that doesn't have and can't get an IPv4 a=
ddr=3D
>> ess isn't "on the Internet".
>=20
> It's on the Internet. ISP's that fail to supply IPv6 at this point
> in time are committing fraud if they claim to supply Internet
> connection.
Good luck prosecuting them for that.
Along with all the internal IT departments that are failing to deliver v6 to=
wifi and desktops.
>=20
>> That may change in the future, but right now this is the web site's fault=
, n=3D
>> ot your ISP's.
>=20
> No, it isn't the site's fault. The internet ran out of IPv4 addresses
> years ago. Not everyone can get a public adddress. =20
Right. Now it is only people who can afford about $8 one time. (The going ra=
te for IPv4 on the transfer market at modest block sizes)
> There are
> millions of customers without a public IPv4 address that can host
> a site because they are behind a CGN which is only needed because
> of the short sightedness of lots of ISPs failing to deliver IPv6
> to their customers.
I think you meant cannot.
Most consumer ISPs also prevent this as a matter of policy. Good luck gettin=
g those policies changed.
>=20
>> Wishing that the IPv6 transition had gone differently does not change
>> reality.
>=20
> I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone
> pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to
> delivering IPv6.
Sure, they're too late. Which is why, until there's more progress, a website=
not reachable over IPv4 is fairly useless if the goal is to serve "most of t=
he users on the Internet"
>=20
> *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the time
> the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. That would have been
> just-in-time engineering. It's not like they didn't have over a
> decade to plan to do it, It's not like there wern't reasonable
> accurate forcecasts for when that would happen.
Yeah, totally agree. Didn't happen. Still hasn't happened. Won't happen tomo=
rrow.
>=20
> It was not hard to see what would happen if you didn't deliver IPv6
> before the first RIR ran out.
>=20
> No instead most of then stuck their heads in the sand and said "we
> have enough IPv4 addresses" without looking at whom they need to
> connect with.
Last I checked, things are still working out just fine for all of them. Desp=
ite the obvious concerns about the future.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)=
