IPv6 deployment excuses

Mon Jul 4 16:51:52 UTC 2016

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Matt Hoppes <
mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> Except the lady will eventually downsize. The college student will want
> more and lease the space.
>
> Also, the 49,000 Sq ft office space that has been leased for 10 years and
> never occupied will be taken back and released to someone who will actually
> develop it.
>

I'm not particularly fond of metaphors using physical resources like land
because physical changes do tend to happen slowly and carry substantial
inertia. As a result such metaphors break down pretty quickly. Internet
numbers are an abstraction with no physical component. As such, their
utility depends on how all the different players on the Internet behave.
Given that, it becomes a classic game theory problem.

It makes little practical difference if there are "enough" IPv4 numbers
theoretically available to serve the demand if only better allocated or
not. I agree with those who believe there aren't given the demands on the
infrastructure and the rate of growth, but that's largely irrelevant. Even
if there theoretically were 'enough' legacy numbers to fit some definition
of 'enough', do you actually believe the many and varied players on the
Internet will converge on that optimal utilization?

I certainly don't.

Nor is that the behavior we're seeing. We see players who have 'more than
enough' by some theoretical optimum utilization scheme conserving the
resources they have for transition. We see large players, who have the most
influence on the direction software and hardware makers move, somewhere in
transition to IPv6. Some are very advanced in their deployment, others are
earlier in it, but pretty much all of them are moving in that direction.

Given that reality and the way the Internet works, at some point in the not
too distant future we're more likely to see the Internet tip toward IPv6
than not. Nothing's certain, but that seems to be where the game is headed.
Once that happens, those caught behind the curve are more likely to suffer
loss than not. The safe bet is to be prepared beforehand, especially since
it's neither particularly difficult nor expensive to deploy IPv6. It's a
comparatively low cost hedge.

Of course, as more people hedge their bets that way, the likelihood that
IPv6 will also turn out to be the 'winning' bet increases, so it starts to
become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But some people prefer risky bets. It's not clear to me what you actually
gain if you bet the farm on IPv4 and its utility remains more or less the
same for a decade. Any cost-savings over deploying IPv6 are likely going to
be more than consumed in renumbering efforts, purchasing IPv4 number
resources, and deploying/administering CGN equipment. So it actually looks
like a lose/lose scenario to me. But if you see some hypothetical advantage
you wish to pursue, go for it.

But if that hypothetical advantage depends on getting everyone on the
Internet to play along with your scheme for optimal IPv4 number
utilization? Well, good luck with that one.

Scott