RIPE our of IPv4

Wed Nov 27 00:26:15 UTC 2019

Sounds like your company is about to go offline. So I will say bye bye 
for now just in case it happens faster than you expected.

C

On 26/11/2019 23:46, Scott Weeks 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.
>
> ::> - 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.
>
> 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.
>
> scott
>
>
>
>
>
> --- cb.list6 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> From: Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
> To: Sabri Berisha <sabri at cluecentral.net>
> Cc: nanog <nanog at 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 at cluecentral.net>
> wrote:
>
>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb at 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.
>
>
>