nanog mailing list archives

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels


From: "tim () pelican org" <tim () pelican org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:19:22 +0100 (BST)



On Friday, 10 June, 2016 05:48, "Mark Foster" <blakjak () blakjak net> said:

Router-jockeys and purists often cite this. I've done it myself.
But there are a lot more moving parts in most service providers than
simply the ones and zeros.
Bandwidth Accounting, Billing, Provisioning systems in particular - and
the developers/maintainers of these who have little or no knowledge of
IPv6 and perhaps not a lot more than that of IPv4, except that it's more
easily human-read and digested?

+1.  (Actually, +lots)

Making the packet-shifting tin shift v6 packets is not that complex, certainly not in the normal cycle of equipment 
upgrades, and assuming you started thinking about it years ago.

All the business systems that sit around it?  Not so much.  $DAYJOB has plenty of code, database structures etc that 
are built around "an IP address is no more than 15 characters long and matches 
'[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}'".  To fix that, you need development time - typically expensive 
analyst time to work out *what* you need to change, not just code-grinder make-the-field-bigger time.  IT departments 
seem reluctant to provide that resource, unless you've got people at the very top of the business bought into the fact 
that you *need* to do IPv6.  In my experience, the IT part of the business, even within an ISP, tends to be the part 
that loves their NAT == security and private addressing for everything[0], so just doesn't see what all the fuss is 
about...

Even putting that aside, there are decisions to be made as a business around how you present IPv6 to the customer.  
Someone in Sales or Finance will want to be charging per /64 (or worse, per address).  Support will want good canned 
answers to the "I have a public address now - where is my NAT?" calls.  Tech Pre-Sales will need upskilling to think in 
networks, not addresses.  Probably a whole bunch more.

Regards,
Tim.

[0] In fairness, this is at least in part due to a decade of beatings from checklist-monkey auditors, but that's a 
different rant.


Current thread: