RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[<michael.dillon () bt com>]

-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon
RadianzNet Capacity Forecast & Plan -- BT Design
66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK
Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 
Internet: michael.dillon () bt com
Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030
http://www.btradianz.com
 
Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/  

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49
> To: Jamie Bowden
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 
> on SOHO routers?]
>
>
> Jamie,
>
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
>
> The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that 
> IPv6 is actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the 
> IETF have shown).  There are lots of bits and pieces that are 
> necessary for mere mortals to actually use IPv6.
>
> > The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled 
> > everywhere,
>
> I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living 
> that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or 
> faster than IPv4, doing  
> so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is 
> lacking.   
> What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which 
> I'm told have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being 
> shipped) necessary to do everything core routers are expected 
> to do for IPv6 yet.
>
> > and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
>
> I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of 
> Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now?  I'm aware, for 
> example, that NTT is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but 
> that is an internal transport service not connected to the 
> Internet.  I'm unaware (but would be very interested in 
> hearing about) any service in Asia or Europe that is seeing 
> significant IPv6 traffic.
>
> > The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the 
> > year.
>
> I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be "IPv6 
> capable" (whatever that means) by this summer.  If there is a 
> mandate to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the 
> year, people are going to have to get very, very busy very, 
> very quickly.
>
> > The
> > only bits that are missing right now are the routers and 
> switches at  
> > the
> > edge, and support from transit providers,
>
> My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are  
> missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant.  
> What is  
> _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it 
> results in the  
> chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request  
> IPv6.  Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the  
> business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it.  Without  
> infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the 
> business case to  
> deploy content on top of IPv6.
>
> > and if they're going to keep
> > supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major  
> > player
> > in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen.
>
> Remember GOSIP?
>
> Regards,
> -drc