why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators

Sun Apr 18 20:33:41 UTC 2004

[consolidated some posts]

> Alex Bligh wrote:
> As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT
> extremely badly (SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix
> it are costly. So if IPv6 means I can avoid NAT, that can
> actually save $$$.

Likely the market will find some other way, which is not to use a
protocol that has problems in 80% of environments and to use one that
works smoothly everywhere; have a look at Skype... Trouble crossing NAT
has always been an excuse for people that design antiquated protocols.
To some extent NAT is a benefit here as it will help to get rid of
these. NAT is a reality; designing a protocol that does not cross it
will only doom said protocol, not remove NAT.

> Petri Helenius wrote:
> We need one (or more) of the p2p vendors to support it.

And why are they not doing it? More work, zero gain. Today, a p2p app
has to cross NAT nicely and has to work over IPv4 nicely. Why bother
with IPv6? It won't bring more users in. From the user's side: why
bother with IPv6 since it works fine with v4? (if it was not working
fine they would not use it in the first place).

> Then IPv6 traffic will explode in three months to ~10-15%
> of all internet traffic

In your dreams. How much does threedegrees traffic account for? 0.0001%?
0.001%? Compare to Kazaa.

> Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
> Dunno what your problem is, I have no problem getting as much
> address space as I need as long as I can justify it. Perhaps
> you need to speak to your provider?

Agree. Actually, the situation is even worse than this: I have numerous
customers that stockpile IPv4 addresses that they don't need just
because they can have them (just in case). A typical 400-user
organization with NAT needs only a dozen or two IPv4 addresses; however,
I see more and more requesting 2 class Cs from their provider because
they can justify the number. And there are number of bigger enterprises
that multihome for the month they request their portable address space
in order to get it, and then drop BGP and the second provider.

> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> [IPv6] Renumbering is much easier.
What a joke. Have a look at this:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedu
re-00.txt
Then, ever tried to renumber a Windows 2000 domain controller? And
please, save me the "Microsoft is crud" thing. 95% percent of the
networks I renumbered had more than one.
75% of the renumbering hassle is orthogonal to the protocol being
renumbered.

> So currently, multi6 is looking at approaches that allow transport
> protocols to jump addresses in the middle of a session.

Which will be developed just the same for IPv4.

> Paul Jakma wrote:
> [snip darth vader]
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Michel, you forgot to include the audio: 
> http://www.bgpexpert.com/darkside.mp3

Cut/paste casualty! I requested the file from you 2 days ago for this
very purpose!
Paul, I'm surprised you missed the "dark side" thing.

> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Michel is no longer in the IPv6 business,

Wrong. I'm currently in the anti-IPv6 business. The dark side.

> Paul Jakma wrote: 
> (how's your MHAP doing?

I dumped it.

> How's Iljitsch's geo-assigned addressing proposal?

Right behind MHAP in oblivion land. At this very time, I think Iljitsch
is wondering how to deal with Darth Py and Darth Jakma...

> Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want
> IPv6 (given you have 4)? And, to be more on-topic, name one
> good reason why a network operator would want it? Especially
> given that, apart from the traditional bleeding edges
> academic networks), no customers are asking for it.

You're preaching the choir.

> But there _will_ be NAT, that is the very premise of this
> discussion, as offered by Paul Vixie.

And Tim Chown, and me, and plenty of others.

> So that one doesnt count, unless you knock down the premise:
> There will be site-local and NAT with v6 because of the
> multihoming problem.

I used to think that way, but no longer. When we started ipv6mh, there
was still a chance that providing a reasonable multihoming solution
would get IPv6 out the mud hole. Trouble is that there were developments
in other sectors of IPv6 that I was not able to foreseen have changed
the situation to a point where IPv6 multihoming is no more that a bug on
the windshield of IETF backroom politics, to re-use Vixie's words.

For everyone, here's the bottom line:

- Today, what to do with IPv6 is simple: nothing. Whether you are an
end-user/small business, large enterprise or provider everyone is in the
same situation: is costs money to upgrade, causes trouble, not the only
thing we have to do anyway, there is no demand and therefore no ROI. It
is urgent to wait. IPv6 is in a very similar situation ISDN was some
time ago:
I Still Don't Need.
- -     -     -

- Tomorrow, IPv4 will get the small upgrades that are needed.

Michel.