nanog mailing list archives
RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:10:26 -0700
It matters not if a handful of transit providers are dual-stack, access networks still prevent native IPv6 from reaching the customer. Also from what I have seen there is very little native dual-stack or 6PE in North America, even from those that claim to offer IPv6 service. Everyone is 'waiting for customer demand' before investing seriously. Consumers will not demand IPv6 by name until the IPv4 pool has run dry and their cost for connectivity goes up and press starts regularly talking about alternatives. Content providers have no incentive to demand until they can get clear native pathways to the consumer. Access providers have a pile of CPE to deal with, and the $.05 that it costs to put in dual-stack makes them non-competitive (that is the whine I hear). Transit providers can turn on dual-stack, but don't widely because they fear the impact that a few thousand more routing slots will have, and want to wait till the last possible minute to get the best potential RIB/FIB scaling. I never said the sky was falling. I am just observing the stand-off that is going on. The only way to move forward is for some collection of entities to break from their respective herd and deliver end-to-end native IPv6 service. Kevin Day's effort will provide some real info to squelch the FUD that keeps going around, but that is only a starting point. The transition tool set is out there to break any dependencies on rollout sequence, but if they are deployed in a haphazard fashion the resulting unpredictability will raise opex. What we clearly need are deployment guidelines and documentation of the pitfalls of the 'don't go there' approaches to dispel fear about the business impact of going first and getting it wrong. Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy () psg com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:40 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: 'John Curran'; 'Donald Stahl'; nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: NANOG 40 agenda postedThis is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are refusing to move firstdue tolack of contentpure bs. most significant backbones are dual stack. you are the chicken, claiming the sky is falling. randy
Current thread:
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush (May 30)
- dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Patrick W. Gilmore (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Donald Stahl (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] Merike Kaeo (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- Re: dual-stack simon (May 31)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch (May 30)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Mark Tinka (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 29)
- Testing IPv6 support on th client's machine (Was: NANOG 40 agenda posted Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 30)
- Re: Testing IPv6 support on the client's machine (Was: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 30)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)