RIPE our of IPv4

Tue Nov 26 23:11:40 UTC 2019

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri at cluecentral.net>
wrote:

> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us wrote:
>
> > I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> > folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> > rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
>
> When the MBAs start realizing the risk of not deploying it.
>

Hey, i have an mba. That and $5 will get me cup of coffee.

> I have some inside knowledge about the IPv6 efforts of a large eyeball
> network.

Me too.

In that particular case, the cost of deploying IPv6 internally is not
> simply configuring it on the network gear; that has already been done. The
> cost of fully supporting IPv6 includes (but is probably not limited to):
>
> - Support for deploying IPv6 across more than 20 different teams;

Wow.  I support 80M mobile subscribers, 90% of which are ipv6-only.  I
think 20 people in the company can spell ipv6, but somehow you need 20
teams.... how many teams speak ipv4 ?

> - Modifying old (ancient) internal code;

Ancient in 2019 means what? Is this code not in security compliance ?

> - Modifying old (ancient) database structures (think 16 character fields
> for IP addresses);

Hash 128 bits into 240/4 is how i heard Google handled it early on

> - Upgrading/replacing load balancers and other legacy crap that only
> support IPv4 (yeah, they still exist);

Again, with all the CVEs, this code is always moving in the real world.

> - Modifying the countless home-grown tools that automate firewalls etc;

Home grown means it can be fixed instead of replaced.

> - Auditing the PCI infrastructure to ensure it is still compliant after
> deploying IPv6;
>

Ah, so you are keeping up with compliance / cve and are upgrading at
regular intervals?

> If it was as simple as upgrading a few IP stacks here and there, it would
> be a non-issue.
>

Usually is just a few edge stacks to start and scale the edge

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against IPv6 deployment; on the
> contrary. But it is not that simple in the real corporate world. Execs have
> bonus targets.

Why would an exec care?  Ipv6 is just normal work like ipv4.

IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of that bonus target:

The bonus target was normal business continuity planning... in 2008.  Sorry
you missed that one.  Here you go, just put 1 in 2009 to make it 2019 so
you dont look so bad

https://www.arin.net/vault/knowledge/about_resources/ceo_letter.pdf

there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to
> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
>
> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA

I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:

FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort
experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers
in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on
the blockchain.  Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago.  Big content and
big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and
iot botnets.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191126/c07bf8fb/attachment.html>