Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Mike Lyon <mike.lyon () gmail com>]

I dont think my customers would see it that way. They would say, "we'll
just go with ATT or Comcast instead." Poof, there goes that MRR!

-The other WISP Mike
On Jul 5, 2015 9:54 AM, "Mel Beckman" <mel () beckman org> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> They certainly won't like it. But the situation is the same everywhere.
> It's not like they're being gouged.
>
> -mel via cell
>
> > On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
> >
> > You don't work with end-users much, do you? The same types that follow
> Free Press and what not about how their ISP breaks it off in their backside
> (despite no concrete evidence - see the recent M-Labs, Free Press
> incident)... they won't take too kindly to being told to pay more for IPv4
> to make whatever game work properly. It has to be seamless and it has to be
> free.
> > -----
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Midwest Internet Exchange
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Mel Beckman" <mel () beckman org>
> > To: "Josh Moore" <jmoore () atcnetworks net>
> > Cc: nanog () nanog org
> > Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 10:52:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
> >
> > Dual-stack doesn't require public IPv4 addresses. Since IPv4 is in short
> supply, providers must still do what they can to conserve them. This means
> NAT, with appropriate management to not overload any one IP, or CGN if you
> want to keep public IPv4 (but no longer unique ones) on CPE. Not every
> customer needs direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT; those that do must pay
> for it. If those who have it aren't willing to pay, they must give up their
> public IPv4 address.
> > That is the most efficient direct IPv4 provisioning concept we have
> today. Given the history of IPv6 adoption, it's clear that people won't
> move until they experience pain sticking with IPv4.
> > "On demand" IPv4 isn't currently being done anywhere AFAIK, and since
> we're abandoning IPv4 it's not likely anyone has that on their priority
> list. It's not a good policy to go out of your way to make IPv4 users
> comfortable. IPv4 is going to go away, and the sooner customers get that
> and go to IPv6, the sooner the pain will stop :)
> > -mel beckman
> >
> > > On Jul 4, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Josh Moore <jmoore () atcnetworks net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the
> CPE.
> > > Consider the following:
> > >
> > > An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack
> with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow
> regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best
> practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If
> this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with
> the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need
> legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what
> about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems
> that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4
> address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any,
> solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best
> thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be?
> > > Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns
> and while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting
> there; I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the
> immediate issue: IPv4 depletion.
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Joshua Moore
> > > Network Engineer
> > > ATC Broadband
> > > 912.632.3161