Re: RIPE our of IPv4

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 3:47 PM Scott Weeks <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:

> Top posting...
>
> ---------------------------------
> :: But it is not that simple in the real corporate world.
> :: Execs have bonus targets.
>
> Why would an exec care?  Ipv6 is just normal work like ipv4.
> ---------------------------------
>
> No, you have to make purchases and have folks across the
> company do work to get everything going.  Refocusing folks
> work on deploying IPv6 to *everything* (rather than, say,
> getting that shiny new Nokia 7750 deployed so we can sell
> more services) costs money.  Ancient boxen are out here
> and don't support aye pee vee six well or at all.  Getting
> ones that do costs money.  Training lower level folks takes
> them away from their current work and costs money.  Etc.

This is known as “too hungry to eat” or something similar about failing to
help yourself

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-advice-to-startups-raise-prices-2016-6



> ::> - Modifying old (ancient) internal code;
> :: Ancient in 2019 means what? Is this code not in security
> :: compliance ?
>
> I recently started back with a company after being gone nine
> years.  My code was still running and no one in neteng had
> the knowledge of how to do anything with it much less to try
> to write in IPv6 sections.  To take an SA and look into the
> networking code I wrote takes them away from things they
> need to do to sell services.  That costs money.
>
> What Sabri wrote hit home here.  Folks are not looking into
> it and will wait until forced to do so.  Then said companies
> will be behind the ball in a big way, but that it what it is
> here and in the other companies I worked for.

We agree, neglecting ipv6 is a bad business decision


> A lot of this read to me as flippant.  You don't seem to be
> willing to listen to those of us out here on the raggedy
> edges. I've said what Sabri said at least a few times on this
> list.

Sabri volunteered the information that they are an MBA at a large eyeball
network with 20 teams... , not the “raggedy edge”, they said something
about executive bonus alignment being the key problem....

That said, speaking of not being listened too, this artifact is useful as
it squarely raises the business risk in no uncertain terms.

https://www.arin.net/vault/knowledge/about_resources/ceo_letter.pdf

Business risk is mitigated or accepted ... for the last 10 years.  Folks /
orgs make decisions and deal with the consequence.

My reality is that, at scale, ipv4 is winnowing longtail. The majority of
real bits/s and dollars are in ipv6. Ymmv. But i reject vehemently the
notion that v6 vanity project with no obvious business case / roi (Another
misstatement by Sabri).

If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different issue from ipv6
being dysfunctional.


> scott
>
>
>
>
>
> --- cb.list6 () gmail com wrote:
>
> From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
> To: Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>
> Cc: nanog <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:11:40 -0800
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>
> wrote:
>
> > ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb () dougbarton us
> wrote:
> > > I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> > > folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> > > rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
> >
> > When the MBAs start realizing the risk of not deploying it.
>
> Hey, i have an mba. That and $5 will get me cup of coffee.
>
>
> > I have some inside knowledge about the IPv6 efforts of a large eyeball
> > network.
>
>
> Me too.
>
> In that particular case, the cost of deploying IPv6 internally is not
> > simply configuring it on the network gear; that has already been done.
> The
> > cost of fully supporting IPv6 includes (but is probably not limited to):
> >
> > - Support for deploying IPv6 across more than 20 different teams;
>
>
> Wow.  I support 80M mobile subscribers, 90% of which are ipv6-only.  I
> think 20 people in the company can spell ipv6, but somehow you need 20
> teams.... how many teams speak ipv4 ?
>
>
> > - Modifying old (ancient) internal code;
>
>
> Ancient in 2019 means what? Is this code not in security compliance ?
>
>
> > - Modifying old (ancient) database structures (think 16 character fields
> > for IP addresses);
>
>
> Hash 128 bits into 240/4 is how i heard Google handled it early on
>
>
> > - Upgrading/replacing load balancers and other legacy crap that only
> > support IPv4 (yeah, they still exist);
>
>
> Again, with all the CVEs, this code is always moving in the real world.
>
>
> > - Modifying the countless home-grown tools that automate firewalls etc;
>
>
> Home grown means it can be fixed instead of replaced.
>
>
> > - Auditing the PCI infrastructure to ensure it is still compliant after
> > deploying IPv6;
>
> Ah, so you are keeping up with compliance / cve and are upgrading at
> regular intervals?
>
>
>
> > If it was as simple as upgrading a few IP stacks here and there, it would
> > be a non-issue.
>
> Usually is just a few edge stacks to start and scale the edge
>
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against IPv6 deployment; on the
> > contrary. But it is not that simple in the real corporate world. Execs
> have
> > bonus targets.
>
>
> Why would an exec care?  Ipv6 is just normal work like ipv4.
>
> IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of that bonus target:
>
>
> The bonus target was normal business continuity planning... in 2008.  Sorry
> you missed that one.  Here you go, just put 1 in 2009 to make it 2019 so
> you dont look so bad
>
> https://www.arin.net/vault/knowledge/about_resources/ceo_letter.pdf
>
>
> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to
> > be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
> >
> > IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
>
>
> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
>
> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort
> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers
> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on
> the blockchain.  Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago.  Big content and
> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and
> iot botnets.
>
>
> >