Nat

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Fri Dec 18 22:13:24 UTC 2015


In message <D299E31B.D159F%Lee at asgard.org>, Lee Howard writes:
> 
> 
> On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
> <nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of mel at beckman.org> wrote:
> 
> >Mark,
> >
> >Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
> >will get us all there eventually.
> 
> Some companies will run out of IPv4 addresses before others. When that
> happens, they have four choices:
> 
> 1. Buy IPv4 addresses. But supply is going; in a couple of years, there
> will be nothing larger than a /16. And this raises costs, and therefore
> consumer prices.
> 2. Address sharing. Breaks p2p, some other things.
> 3. Address family translation. Breaks several things.
> 4. IPv6-only. Means only IPv6-enabled content is available.

Additionally just because you have enough IPv4 addresses it doesn't
mean that the other end has a IPv4 address that is not shared with
multiple customers.  You can't connect to them.

The ISP industry has totally [email protected]#[email protected]$ over the customers for too
long.  It should have made available IPv6 to everyone before the
first RIR ran out of addresses. Everyone of you that has not delivered
IPv6 to your customers already should be ashamed to call yourself
a ISP because you definitely have stopped delivering the Internet
to your customers (you only deliver half the Internet), you have
not Provided the Service that they need to be able to connect to
everyone out there in the world.  When your customers purchase a
Internet connection they *expect* to be able to reach *everyone*
not just those that have a IPv4 address to themselves because they
don't care about IPv4 vs IPv6.  They just want to be able to reach
everyone that is on the Internet and it is your *job* to deliver
that.  Thats what you get *paid* to do.  Not doing that is *fraud*.

It's time governments started issuing large fines for false advertising
for failure to make available IPv6 to your customers.


> That's why some values of $we "need" to force people to deploy IPv6: so
> $we don't screw consumers and break the Internet.
> 
> But those with IPv4 addresses see exhaustion as someone else's problem.
> They don't care if somebody else's prices go up, unless they're the ones
> blamed for the rising prices. ("You have to pay more for Internet access
> or you won't be able to reach Amazon or eBay.")
> They might not like the performance of address sharing/translation, but if
> they wait until they notice the pain, and it takes them two years to
> respond, they're already in serious trouble.
>
> There is still time for companies without IPv6 to get it deployed before
> going out of business. But anyone who isn't done two years from now is in
> trouble.
>
> Lee

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org



More information about the NANOG mailing list