/27 the new /24
marka at isc.org
Wed Oct 7 20:15:19 UTC 2015
In message <520CE953-012C-4599-A85B-69517E0904DC at matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman w
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> In message <A35FA880-B612-4458-BD22-323BEF66A5BC at matthew.at>, Matthew
>> Kaufman w
>>>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> Instead, the followup question is neededâ¦
>>>> âThatâs great, but how does that help me reach a web site that
>>>> doesnât have and canât get an IPv4 address?â
>>> At the present time, a web site that doesn't have and can't get an
>>> IPv4 address isn't "on the Internet".
>> It's on the Internet. ISP's that fail to supply IPv6 at this point
>> in time are committing fraud if they claim to supply Internet
>Good luck prosecuting them for that.
I don't have to. I'm sure some AG will do so soon enough.
>Along with all the internal IT departments that are failing to deliver v6
>to wifi and desktops.
What does a companies decision about whether to use IPv6 internally
have to do with the matter? It's not fraud to not use IPv6. It
is fraud to claim that you supply "the Internet" and don't supply
>>> That may change in the future, but right now this is the web site's
>>> fault, not your ISP's.
>> No, it isn't the site's fault. The internet ran out of IPv4 addresses
>> years ago. Not everyone can get a public adddress.
>Right. Now it is only people who can afford about $8 one time. (The going
>rate for IPv4 on the transfer market at modest block sizes)
>> There are
>> millions of customers without a public IPv4 address that can host
>> a site because they are behind a CGN which is only needed because
>> of the short sightedness of lots of ISPs failing to deliver IPv6
>> to their customers.
>I think you meant cannot.
Yes, "cannot host a site".
>Most consumer ISPs also prevent this as a matter of policy. Good luck
>getting those policies changed.
Actually most don't. Remember a "site" can be the remote controls for
equipement at home.
>>> Wishing that the IPv6 transition had gone differently does not change
>> I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone
>> pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to
>> delivering IPv6.
>Sure, they're too late. Which is why, until there's more progress, a
>website not reachable over IPv4 is fairly useless if the goal is to serve
>"most of the users on the Internet"
>> *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the time
>> the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. That would have been
>> just-in-time engineering. It's not like they didn't have over a
>> decade to plan to do it, It's not like there wern't reasonable
>> accurate forcecasts for when that would happen.
>Yeah, totally agree. Didn't happen. Still hasn't happened. Won't happen
Which still doesn't make it the fault of the site that can only get
>> It was not hard to see what would happen if you didn't deliver IPv6
>> before the first RIR ran out.
>> No instead most of then stuck their heads in the sand and said "we
>> have enough IPv4 addresses" without looking at whom they need to
>> connect with.
>Last I checked, things are still working out just fine for all of them.
>Despite the obvious concerns about the future.
Usually only because they abuse their oligopoly position. The FCC
(US) / ACCC (AUS) etc. should be prosecuting ISP's that don't supply
IPv6 at this point in time.
>(Sent from my iPhone)
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