Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <201004201240.o3KCeHl4074118 () aurora sol net>, Joe Greco writes:
> > In message <201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459 () aurora sol net>, Joe Greco writes:
> > > > That'd be easy if you were just starting up an ISP. What do you do with
> > > > your existing customer base? If their current service includes a
> > > > dynamic public IPv4 address, you can't gracefully take it away, without
> > > > likey violating services T&Cs, government telco regulations etc. So
> > > > you'll have to go through a formal process of getting agreement with
> > > > customers to take them away.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen any such documents or regulations.
> >
> > People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would
> > get a Internet address.  A address behind a NAT is not a Internet
> > address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different
> > thing.
>
> People purchase mobile Internet service and get placed behind 
> carrier NAT.  People get free Internet at hotels and are almost
> always behind a NAT.  The terminology war is lost.

But regardless of what it is called people usually know what they
signed up for and when what has worked for the 5-6 years suddenly
breaks ...

> > > Many/most people are _already_ behind a NAT gateway.
> >
> > They are behind NAT44 which they deployed themselves and control
> > the configuration of themselves.  They can direct incoming traffic
> > as they see fit.  They are NOT restricted to UDP and TCP.
> >
> > NAT444 is a different kettle of fish.  There are lots of things
> > that you do with a NAT44 that you can't do with a NAT444.
> >
> > If all you do is browse the web and read email then you won't see
> > the much of a difference.  If you do anything more complicated than
> > making outgoing queries you will see the difference.
>
> You *might* see the difference.  You might not, too.
>
> And hey, just so we're clear here, I would *agree* that Internet access
> ought to mean an actual IP address with as little filtering, etc., as
> reasonable...  but we're exploring what happens at exhaustion here.  So
> I'm not interested in arguing this point; the fact of the matter is that
> we WILL hit exhaustion, and it's going to be a hell of an operational
> issue the day your subscribers cannot get an IP from the DHCP server
> because they're all allocated and in use.
>
> I'm as offended as anyone by what is often passed off as "Internet" 
> access, but it's completely devoid of value to argue what you seem to
> be saying:  the fact that it is so _today_ does not mean that it /has/
> to be so _tomorrow._  All that's down that path is exhaustion with no
> solutions.  

Hopefully being on the Internet, for the home user, will mean you
have IPv6 connectivity and public address space handed out using
PD in 3-5 years time.  That Google, Yahoo etc. have turned on IPv6
to everyone.  DS-lite or some other distributed NAT44 technology
is being used to for those machines that don't support IPv6 or to
reach content providers that have not yet enabled IPv6.

If the ISP decides to go with NAT444 then the will be control pages
that get you a real IPv4 address the same as many hotels have today
as there will be customers that need the functionality.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org