Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 2/18/24 8:47 AM, Greg Skinner via NANOG wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2024, at 11:27 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 10:34?AM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Funny, I don't recall Bellovin and Cheswick's Firewall book discussing
> > > NAT.
> > And mine too, since I hadn't heard of "Firewalls and Internet
> > Security: Repelling the Wily Hacker" and have not read it.
> For what it's worth, both editions of Bellovin and Cheswick's Firewalls book are online. [1]  Also, there are 
> discussions about NAT and how it influenced IPng (eventually IPv6) on the big-internet list. [2]

FWIW, while at Cisco I started to get wind of some NAT-like proposal 
being floated by 3COM at Packetcable back in the late 90's, early 2000's 
(sorry, I have no memory of the specifics now). That was pretty 
horrifying to me and others as the implication was that we'd have to 
implement it in our routers, which I'm sure 3COM viewed as a feature, 
not a bug. We pushed back that implementing IPv6 was a far better option 
if it came down to that. That sent me and Steve Deering off on an 
adventure to figure out how we might actually make good on that 
alternative in the various service provider BU's. Unsurprisingly the 
BU's were not very receptive not just because of the problems with v6 vs 
hardware forwarding, but mostly because providers weren't asking for it. 
They weren't asking for CGNAT like things either though so it was mostly 
the status quo. IOS on the other hand was taking IPv6 much more 
seriously so that providers could at least deploy it in the small for 
testing, pilots, etc even if it was a patchwork in the various platforms.

The problem with v6 uptake has always been on the provider side. BU's 
wouldn't have wanted to respin silicon but if providers were asking for 
it and it gave them a competitive advantage, they'd have done it in a 
heartbeat. It's heartening to hear that a lot of big providers and orgs 
are using IPv6 internally to simplify management along with LTE's use of 
v6. I don't know what's happening in MSO land these days, but it would 
be good to hear if they too are pushing a LTE-like solution. I do know 
that Cablelabs pretty early on -- around the time I mentioned above -- 
has been pushing for v6. Maybe Jason Livingood can clue us in. Getting 
cable operators onboard too would certainly be a good thing, though LTE 
doesn't have to deal with things like brain dead v4-only wireless 
routers on their network.

Mike