RIPE our of IPv4

Brandon Butterworth brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk
Wed Nov 27 20:49:07 UTC 2019


On Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -0600, Brian Knight wrote:
> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball 
> customers.  They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet 
> content & services via IPv4 in 2019.  I regularly vet deals for our 
> sales team, and out of the hundreds of deals we sold this year, I can 
> count on one hand the number of deals where customers wanted IPv6.  We 
> sold them IPv6 access, but we didn't put it on our own network, because 
> we face the same internal challenges Sabri mentioned.  (SD-WAN, OTOH, 
> was far more popular

A few year later customer wakes up:

"wait you sold us all those toys we didn't need but didn't include
the basic transport capabilites everyone apparently has been saying
for over a decade are required minimum?"

"and now you want us to pay you to rebuild it again and trust that
you got the basics right this time?"

If you're an internet professional you are a negligent one if by
now you are not ensuring all you build quietly includes IPv6, no
customer should need to know to ask for it. It's not like it
needs different kit.

> As an aside, I would guess that it's the corporate eyeball customers 
> with servers, not resi/mobile behind CGNAT, that will bear the brunt of 
> the IPv4 cost first.  But what enterprise wants to tell its non-IPv6 
> customers "your Internet needs to be upgraded, come back to us when 
> you're done?"  That doesn't bode well for the short-term future.

"all that multi natted into same address space VPN firewall 
complicated knitting we never got right wasn't needed if you'd
told us to use IPv6?"

brandon



More information about the NANOG mailing list