/27 the new /24

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Thu Oct 8 14:23:27 UTC 2015

In message <56166C30.3070501 at matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > 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. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the 
> > time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. 
> Look, I'm as much a supporter of delivering IPv6 as anyone. I've had 
> IPv6 enabled on my home network (and the small data center I run in my 
> garage) for over a decade now. In 2004, I made sure that IPv6 was fully 
> supported in the peer-to-peer stack I developed and that eventually 
> became RFC 7016. And for the last 5 years I've been pushing for IPv6 
> support in the product I work on for my employer.

And I've done tunnelled (home) and native (office in RWC) for over
a decade.

> But the reality is that there's a whole lot of small and medium-sized 
> ISPs run by fine, upstanding individuals serving their communities -- 
> even in and around the San Francisco Bay Area -- that have either no or 
> very limited (tunnels only) support for IPv6. That's the reality of the 
> transition. And threatening these folks with the attorney general isn't 
> the way to get them to adopt IPv6, nor is shaming them. They will add 
> IPv6 support when it is easy to do, when their staff has the time, and 
> when the economics make sense.

I'm happy if they advertise "IPv4 Internet Only", just don't lie
by claiming you deliever the Internet.  To deliver the Internet you
need to be delivering both IPv4 and IPv6.

> Meanwhile we have app developers trying to use cloud platforms that 
> don't support IPv6 well (or at all), writing code while sitting in 
> offices that don't have IPv6 service due either to their ISP or their 
> internal IT department... and so there's another reason ISPs need to 
> keep concentrating on IPv4 as their first priority.

Just because some of the ISP's customers are happy with IPv4 is not
a reason to neglect the customers that need IPv6.  You may not want
to call the Sudan often but would you want your telco to be incapable
of delivering calls to the Sudan?

> And so, in the current actual Internet, not some hypothetical one, if 
> you want your website to be seen, you get it an IPv4 address. And with 
> IPv4 going for $6-$8 each and it being possible to support hundreds or 
> thousands of websites on a single IPv4 address, there's really no excuse.

And there you go assuming that a hosted web site is what someone
needs rather than the ability to get back to their machines that
are behind a CGN for IPv4 but are reachable over IPv6.

This is today's reality and ISP's are not meeting today's needs.
It's not just about having enough IPv4 addresses.  It's about
providing the infrastructure to allow your customers to connect to

> Will this be different in the future? I sure hope so. But we're not 
> there yet.
> Matthew Kaufman
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