nanog mailing list archives

Re: RIPE our of IPv4


From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 08:45:09 -0800

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 8:06 AM Brian Knight <ml () knight-networks com> wrote:


On Nov 29, 2019, at 5:28 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:


"So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated
that to us."

Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important.


Personally, I don’t disagree. We engineers do what we can to support IPv6:
We build it into our tooling and switch it on in our gear. Our network is
dual stack v4/v6 and has been for quite a while. But with other tools we
don’t control, and particularly in terms of business process, we have a
ways to go, and it’s not a priority.

I want IPv6 to succeed, really.  But the global end game picture looks
more and more bleak to me.


I can see how your situation is bleak

That said, google see nearly 40% of their traffic on  ipv6 in the usa ,
growth trend looks strong

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

And

Comcast (71%), Charter (52%), VZ (85%),  ATT (60 and 78%) , and T-Mobile
(95%) have the majority of their subs on ipv6

https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/


Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet.  Scale shops have
v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away, and that
makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water in ipv4.



Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment.




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


-Brian


------------------------------
*From: *"Brian Knight" <ml () knight-networks com>
*To: *"Mark Andrews" <marka () isc org>
*Cc: *"nanog" <nanog () nanog org>
*Sent: *Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
*Subject: *Re: RIPE our of IPv4


On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:



On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <ml () knight-networks com> wrote:

On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
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:

[snip]
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.

None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball
customers.  They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet
content & services via IPv4 in 2019.

No you can’t.  You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it
is ON THE INTERNET.  It is directly reachable via IPv6.  Selling Internet
connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days.  Don’t
you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?

I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all
Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via
IPv4...”

0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach
some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6
connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW?entry=gmail&source=g>
2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org


Thanks,

-Brian



Current thread: