Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Apr 20 12:38:17 CDT 2010


On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The hardware cost of supporting LSN is trivial. The management/maintenance
>> costs and the customer experience -> dissatisfaction -> support calls ->
>> employee costs will not be so trivial.
> 
> Interesting opinion but not backed up by experience.
> 
Since nobody has experience with LSN, that's a pretty easy statement to make.

However, given the tech. support costs of single-layer NAT and the number of
support calls I've seen from other less disruptive maintenance actions at various
providers where I have worked, I think that in terms of applicable related
experience available, yes, this is backed by experience.

> By contrast John Levine wrote:
>> My small telco-owned ISP NATs all of its DSL users, but you can get your
>> own IP on request. They have about 5000 users and I think they said I was
>> the eighth to ask for a private IP. I have to say that it took several
>> months to realize I was behind a NAT
> 
> I'd bet good money John's experience is a better predictor of what will
> begin occurring when the supply of IPv4 addresses runs low.  Then as now
> few consumers are likely to notice or care.
> 
ROFL... John has already made it clear that his usage profile is particularly
NAT friendly compared to the average user.

> Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying the
> transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both protocols.
> Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is ignored.
> 
Uh, no.  Interesting how the wilful ignorance around NAT and IPv6
is both delaying IPv6 transition and being used as an excuse to make
things even worse for customers in the future.

> That said the underlying issue is still about choice.  We (i.e., the
> IETF) should be giving consumers the _option_ of NAT in IPv6 so they
> aren't required to use it in IPv4.
> 
I guess that depends on whose choice you are interested in preserving.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list