Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Mon Apr 19 20:20:24 UTC 2010

On 04/19/2010 07:45 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Mohacsi Janos<mohacsi at niif.hu>  wrote:
>    
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com
>>> <frnkblk at iname.com>  wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Don't forget the home gateway aspect -- it's a huge gaping hole in the
>>>> IPv6
>>>> deployment strategy for ISPs.  And don't talk to me about Apple's Airport
>>>> Extreme.  ISPs want (once the volume of IETF IPv6-related drafts has
>>>> settled
>>>> down) for every router at Wal-mart to include IPv6 support.  If they
>>>> start
>>>> right now and presume that home gateways/routers are replaced every 3 to
>>>> 5
>>>> years, it will be several years before they've covered even 50% of the
>>>> homes.
>>>>          
>>> Alternatively, they could commission the vendors to release firmware
>>> upgrades with IPv6 support for the most common older devices.   Given
>>> that many of them are Linux based and the code already exists, this
>>> isn't likely to be technically difficult.
>>>        
>> Yes it is. Most of the home gateways are are manufactured : develop, produce
>> and forget life-cycle. The development codebase, is not existing anymore.
>> The developers are moved to another company.... You barely have support for
>> low-end home gateways after a year of first shipment. In the first year some
>> bugfixing....
>>      
> That's because they aren't getting paid for maintaining old firmware
> (razor thin margins).  At least in the case of Linux based units, GPL
> enforcement has for the most part required them to keep better track
> of their codebase.  As a result, I think this is more feasible then
> you do.   Still it WOULD be easier to just work on getting all new
> equipment IPv6 capable.  Both cable and cellphone companies already
> commission custom firmware for their settop boxes and cell phones, I
> see no reason that ISPs couldn't do the same.
>
>    

I actually think the razor thin margins make it less likely.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons firmware updates are not
available from a number of vendors/products, is because the small
boxes don't have enough ROM and/or RAM.

The ROM is to small to hold an extra stack (or other features) and/or
the RAM is to small to handle the connection tracking for the larger
addresses. Because people want a stateful firewall, right ?

>>      
>>> Start by commissioning IPv6 support into all new hardware.   I would
>>> think that given the razor thin margins in home gateways/routers extra
>>> money coming in for simply turning on code which already exists would
>>> be attractive to at least some of them.  Come up with some kind of
>>> logo for the program "IPv6 READY!".
>>>        
>> Don't count much on "IPv6 READY!" logo. IPv6 READY usually means, there are
>> some IPv6 support in the device, but it might not work on your particular
>> environment....: no IPv6 on PPPoE, no DHCPv6 support, no IPv6 setting are
>> possible on webinterface....
>>      
> That's why you make it a trademarked logo and you have licensing
> requirements that
> specify what must be included in order for them to use the logo on
> their marketing materials.  The consortium decides what is needed to
> make IPv6  work for them and enforces it via logo licensing.
> Frankly if the protocols out of the IETF for things like
> DHCP/default routes don't make sense, the consortium can simply
> specify something else.   I'm pretty sure that if the spec comes with
> a sufficiently large check attached the OEMs will implement whatever
> you want in the firmware.
>
> Bill Bogstad
>
>
>    