How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Sat Oct 3 19:40:56 UTC 2015

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 07:56 , Brett A Mansfield <lists at silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> The problem with this is some of us smaller guys don't have the ability to get IPv6 addresses from our upstream providers that don't support it. And even if we did do dual stack, then we're paying for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The cost is just too high. ARIN should give anyone with a current IPv4 address block a free equivalently sized IPv6 block (256 IPv4 = 256 /56s or one /48 IPv6). If they did that, there would be a lot more IPv6 adoption in dual stack. 

False… ARIN will charge you the fee for the largest category you fall into, v4 or v6, but not both.

So, if you are in the ISP category and have a /22 or less, you’re currently not really able to deploy IPv6 for free, but it will only cost you $500/year more than what you are already paying to ARIN.

If you have a /20 or less, then you can get IPv6 from ARIN without increasing your fees (/36) simply by requesting it. However, you should seriously consider requesting a /32 and biting the bullet on the $2000/year fee.

There is work in progress on getting ARIN fees brought more in line between IPv4 and IPv6 and you may want to consider participating in that process and submitting your thoughts to the board for consideration. There will be a discussion of this at the upcoming ARIN meeting in Montreal. Please attend either in person or remotely and voice your thoughts.

If you have more than a /20, then you can easily get a /32 IPv6 just for the asking with no fee impact whatsoever.

> I don't understand why anyone would give an end user a /48. That is over 65,000 individual devices. A /56 is 256 devices which is the standard /24 IPv4. What home user has that many devices??? A /56 to the home should be standard. Based on giving each customer a /56, I could run my entire small ISP off a single /48. I know there are a lot of IP addresses in the IPv6 realm, but why waste them? At the rate were going, everything will have an IP address soon. Maybe one day each item of your clothing will need their own IP address to tell you if it's time to wash or if it needs repair. Stranger things have happened. 

Clearly you have not taken the time to understand the fundamentals of IPv6.

First, a /48 is 65,536 subnets, not 65,000+ devices. Each of those subnets can support more than 18 quintillion devices (18,446,744,073,709,551,616 to be exact), assuming that the customer uses /64 subnets.

A /56 is 256 subnets, and /24s are not really standard for end users in IPv4, especially residential users, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there.

You’re thinking like IPv4. In IPv4, we had to count individual devices and think about hosts. In IPv6, we want to get completely away from that. We also want to pave the way for auto-conf/zero-conf even with complex topologies that may evolve.

So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 devices in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask to use in delegating addresses in a dynamic plug-and-play hierarchical topology that can evolve on demand without user configuration or intervention.

If you cut that down to 8 bits, you seriously reduce the ability for these designs to ever get off the ground.

So… IPv6 Lesson 1: Stop counting hosts and start thinking about counting subnets… Then realize that if you give 65,536 subnets to every end-site, you don’t even have to count subnets and move on.

There’s no legitimate reason not to give an end-site a /48. There is no benefit whatsoever to preserving the scarcity mentality of IPv4. Please move forward.

Thanks,

Owen

> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I think more focus needs to be for carriers to deliver dual stack to their customers door step, whether they demand/use it or not. Small ISPs are probably in the best position to do this and will help push the big boys along with time. If we follow the network effect (reason why IPv4 lives and IPv6 is slowly growing), IPv6 needs more nodes, all other efforts are meaningless if they do not result in more users having IPv6 delivered to their door. 
>> 
>> I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing on device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it working to the people and we can figure out the rest later.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
>> To: Matthew Newton <mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk>
>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
>> 
>> 
>> In message <20151001232613.GD123100 at rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>, Matthew Newton writes:
>> 
>> Additionally it is now a OLD addressing protocol.  We are about to see young adults that have never lived in a world without IPv6.  It may not have been universally available when they were born but it was available.  There are definitely school leavers that have never lived in a world where IPv6 did not exist.  My daughter will be one of them next year when she finishes year 12.  IPv6 is 7 months older than she is.
>> 
>> Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade now and developing products that support IPv6 even longer.
>> 
>> We have had 17 years to build up a universal IPv6 network.  It should have been done by now.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> --
>>> Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4 at le.ac.uk>
>>> 
>>> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University 
>>> of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
>>> 
>>> For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp at le.ac.uk>
>> --
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>> 
> 