NANOG 40 agenda posted

Sun May 27 11:06:03 UTC 2007

Nathan Ward wrote:
[..]
>> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
> 
> Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
> one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.

Why not? If folks are still using Windows 98 by then I surely hope
they can't have any connectivity to the Internet. The word "SpamDrone"
comes to mind for those old versions. As Windows XP is already out for
the last couple of years and has fully working IPv6 support, Vista is
there also with fully working IPv6 support, the OS should definitely
not be a problem anymore. For folks without money, all the Open
Sourcish OS's also do IPv6 perfectly fine, some even already from the
installer.

> If you were an end user, calling up your ISP to get a new DSL line, and
> were told you couldn't have an IPv4 address, only IPv6, and "Sorry sir,
[..]

Your grandma really doesn't know what "IP" is, nor will she ever care.

Ever heared of this thing called "HTTP Proxy"? That solves 90% of
those issues. Takes care of mail also as most intarweb-users are using
webbased mailers anyways. They work perfectly fine and can do IPv4 and
IPv6, using IPv6 as the transport.

Otherwise, you can always abuse http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net or
http://ipv4gate.sixxs.net for the other way around.

> Now that NAT-PT is deprecated (ie. can't be used as an excuse to not
> move), we need to move the large (and small) content providers to
> dual-stack, before we move any customers to v6-only. Content providers
> have all the IPv4 addresses they need already, they're not going to be
> asking for more any time soon. If someone has some bright ideas on how
> to transition without loss of service to *someone*, I'm all ears.
> (IPv4 NAT is not a bright idea.)

What about looking up the word "transition" in the dictionary and
comparing it to "flag day". There is no flag day, it will all be
gradual. Some people have been providing commercial IPv6 connectivity
already since as early as 2001 (and some even earlier!)

Also, if you want to provide those users IPv4 access, you can always
hurdle them behind an IPv4 NAT. They are used to that today already
anyway.

> In addition, when 2010 [1] rolls around, are the free CPE that your
> customers were given in the last 7 days upgradable to support IPv6?

You should have thought about that already, like, 5 years ago!?

Also, you can always just TUNNEL over them. RFC1918 or something
similar to the enduser and then provide them with a NAT to have a
public IPv4 address so that they can reach legitimate resources.
Then provide them with a tunnel so they can use IPv6 in full strength.

But that is a doomsday scenario. Running out of addresses doesn't mean
that IPv4 stops to work.

> This is, of course, assuming we don't hold off until we've got a
> different IPv6 architecture as a result of the RAWS stuff.

Routing and addressing should be separate. Providing blocks of
addresses to organizations that can justify the need for them is
great. Reforming the routing system is a thing that can be done later
when there is somebody who find the magic bullet that folks will
accept. Can take some time of course, but up to then it appears that
vendors of routing equipment can scale...

> [2] While
> we're here, can someone point me in the direction of any ongoing
> discussion/work in this area? I attended the APRICOT workshop, but where
> to go to keep up with things/get involved isn't obvious.

As mentioned in various places:
ram at iab.org, see https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070527/ec3d5acf/attachment.sig>