Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Tue Apr 20 22:02:39 UTC 2010

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:38:17 -0700
Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 

It is backed up by capex - how many people can afford to have just
the chassis to put one of these in? I know most ISPs in Australia
can't (and my opinion is that you shouldn't be putting it in the core
anyway - the only justification I can see to building one of these at
this size is that scaling down is usually a lot easier than scaling up):

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/brochure_c02-560497_ns1017_Networking_Solutions_Brochure.html

> 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
> 
> 