Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

[Todd Underwood <toddunder () gmail com>]

Yep. Nat is terrible. Dual stack is even worse for end user exclusive.
Clients that migrate back and forth between different protocols at will
(hello Mac OS) are going to be really challenging for everyone, too.

But we didn't get magical, free, simple migration. So we could have done
some kind of 8+8 or LISP thing but we didn't. And here we are.


T

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015, 21:15 Dovid Bender <dovid () telecurve com> wrote:

> Nothing to do with religion at all. I advocate IPv6 all the time as some
> one who deals a lot with SIP. The issues are endless when dealing with NAT.
> NAT is an ugly hack and should die already. It will take a few years for
> router manufactures to get it right but them they do it will be better for
> all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dovid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Underwood <toddunder () gmail com>
> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-bounces () nanog org>Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:42:57
> To: Mark Andrews<marka () isc org>; Owen DeLong<owen () delong com>
> Cc: <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
>
> i'm still confused, to be honest.
>
> why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption.
>
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> of the internet.  it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons
> learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet).
>
> so people will renumber their network assets into this new network
> namespace when either:
>
> 1) the new non-internet ipv6 network has enough good stuff only on it that
> it makes sense to go over there; or
>
> 2) the old ipv4 internet addresses get so expensive that ain't no one
> willing to pay.
>
> right now, neither of those things are true.  so people who are adopting
> ipv6 are doing so for two reason:
>
> A) blind, unmotivated religious reasons.  they "believe" in this new
> protocol and have somehow managed to tie their identity up in it.  (this is
> clearly a mistake for an engineer:  technology comes and goes.  don't ever
> tie your identity up in some technology or you'll end up advocating DECNET
> for the cloud at some point.  it won't be pretty).
>
> B) strategic reasons.  there are people who think that switching costs are
> going to be high and that there's an advantage to moving earlier to be
> ready for coming demand when #1 or #2 above happen.  unlike A, B is
> completely rational and smart.  it might be wrong, but it's not stupid at
> all.  put mike leber and HE in this B category.
>
> the only reason people are *advocating* ipv6 right now are that they've
> made a religious choice, which is weird and should be a personal, not
> public choice unless they are great commission ipv6 adherants [1], *or*
> they have a vested interest in getting your business.
>
> the first reason is religion and is off-topic for nanog and the second
> reason is marketing (however well intentioned) and should also be off topic
> for nanog.
>
> so can we stop talking about ipv6 advocacy and move on to the network
> engineering topics, please?  if someone is running ipv6 for whatever reason
> and has questions, awesome.  if someone wants to talk about addressing
> schemes, awesome.  but trying to convince someone to run LAT^H^H^Hipv6 or
> whatever disconnected network protocol they're advocating today?  not
> useful.
>
> cheers,
>
> t
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:32 PM Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
>
> > In message <4F2E19BA-D92A-4BEC-86E2-33B405C307BE () delong com>, Owen
> DeLong
> > writes:
> > > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz () Janoszka pl>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > > > However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start
> > > charging extra
> > > > > for IPv4 service.
> > > >
> > > > ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many
> customers
> > > will migrate from v4/dual stack to v6-only and ISP's will be left with
> > > unused IPv4 addresses and less income.
> > >
> > > Nope… They’ll be left with unused IPv4 addresses which is not a
> > > significant source of income and they’ll be able to significantly
> reduce
> > > the costs incurred
> > > in supporting things like CGNAT.
> > >
> > > > Will ISP's still find other profitable usage for v4 addresses? If
> not,
> > > they will be probably be quite slowly rising IPv4 pricing, not wanting
> to
> > > overprice it.
> > >
> > > Probably they will sell it to business customers instead of the
> > > residential customers. However, we’re talking about relatively large
> > > numbers of customers
> > > for relatively small numbers of IPv4 addresses that aren’t producing
> > > revenue directly at this time anyway.
> > >
> > > > Even with $1/IPv4/month - what will be the ROI of a brand new home
> > > router?
> > >
> > > About 2.5 years at that price since a brand new home router is about
> $29.
> > > Owen
> >
> > The hard part is the internet connected TV's and other stuff which
> > fetches content over the internet which are IPv4 only despite being
> > released when IPv6 existed.  These are theoretically upgradable to
> > support IPv6 so long as the manufactures release a IPv6 capable
> > image.  The real question is will governments force them to do this.
> >
> > Upgrading the router is a no brainer.  Upgrading the TV, games
> > consoles, e-readers, etc. starts to add up.
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org