/27 the new /24
Christian de Larrinaga
cdel at firsthand.net
Thu Oct 8 14:27:27 UTC 2015
Around 2004 I noted that the fear was without v4 something in the
network would break. (It was considered crazy then to consider v6 only).
Now I'm seeing concern that something in the applications will break.
The difference is that networks can't guarantee to push static IPv4 to
those problems like they could. New networks can't establish let alone
grow unless they are essentially v6 only with v4 translation. But I'm
seeing concern that some of these newer IETF transition mechanisms are
too complex or expensive - i.e., off-putting enough so a smaller ISP is
forced to consider CGNAT.
I'm not sure if this is just an isolated case or if there is something
missing needed by smaller and growing ISPs .
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Will this be different in the future? I sure hope so. But we're not
> there yet.
> Matthew Kaufman
Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP,
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net
More information about the NANOG