[191699] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: One Year On: IPv4 Exhaust
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Sep 25 18:45:22 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1474840690.4107784.736591409.28E807DF@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 16:41:17 -0600
To: Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Sep 25, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Radu-Adrian Feurdean =
<nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
>=20
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016, at 23:27, Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
>> But it shows that if you turn on IPv6 on the servers you will get
>> IPv6 traffic. We are no longer is a world where turning on IPv6
>> got you a handful of connections. There are billions of devices
>> that can talk IPv6 to you today the moment you allow them to.
>=20
> I know, but for the "server guys" turning on IPv6 it's pretty low on
> priority list.
Which is a selfish, arrogant, and extremely short-sighted and =
unenlightened view of self-interest.
(see below)
>=20
>> Can all your customers talk IPv6 to you? No.
>> It the proportion of customers that can talk IPv6 to you increasing?=20=
>> Yes.
>=20
> My customers are eyeballs. Residential ones have dual-stack by =
default,
> business - some have, some don't and some explicitly refuse (or ask =
for
> v6 to be disabled).
If you don=E2=80=99t want to face an escalating nightmare for supporting =
those businesses
in the last category in the future, you should probably be educating =
them today.
Sure, go ahead and do what they want, but at least make a stab at =
letting them
know why this might not be such a great idea going forward.
>=20
>> Is somewhere between 11-14% worldwide enough for you to invest the
>> time to turn on IPv6 enough? It should be.
>=20
> Since they (the 11-14% worldwide) do have IPv4 anyway, some consider
> it's not worth; at least not yet.
This is a circular argument=E2=80=A6 The 11-14% still have IPv4 through =
various increasingly
fragile and unscalable mechanisms mainly to deal with servers that =
haven=E2=80=99t deployed IPv6 yet.
If all the servers they want to reach had IPv6, it would be relatively =
easy and highly desirable for
their ISPs to turn off their IPv4 relatively quickly.
OTOH, the server guys (mostly) can=E2=80=99t get to pure IPv6 because of =
the lagging eyeball networks
that don=E2=80=99t universally deploy IPv6 to all of their customers.
It=E2=80=99s like a perverse form of constructive resonance where each =
one feeds on the other in an escalating
destructive cycle. Unfortunately, the ones suffering are not the ones =
causing the problem, so it becomes
another typical example of what is classically known as the =E2=80=9Ctoxic=
polluter=E2=80=9D problem of capitalist economies.
(Absent regulation or morality, dump your toxic waste in such a location =
as it doesn=E2=80=99t cause you a problem,
without regard to the impact on others is the most cost effective =
solution to the problem)
> The issue with IPv6 deployment it's not as simple as some people
> suggest. It's not a technical problem either, but it's a big one.
For the vast majority of networks, it=E2=80=99s not a big problem, but =
it hasn=E2=80=99t achieved adequate visibility as a
business continuity risk, so it continues to plod along and laggards =
continue to inflict remote damage.
The good news is that as more and more of the larger content and eyeball =
networks deploy more and
more IPv6, the remaining laggards will rapidly become less and less =
relevant until it=E2=80=99s no longer worth
holding up progress on the internet just for the sake of keeping them =
connected. They will become
a series of disconnected IPv4 islands in an IPv6 ocean that passes them =
by as they sail off into obscurity.
Owen
