RIPE our of IPv4

Sat Nov 30 16:45:09 UTC 2019

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 8:06 AM Brian Knight <ml at knight-networks.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 29, 2019, at 5:28 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> 
> "So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated
> that to us."
>
> Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important.
>
>
> Personally, I don’t disagree. We engineers do what we can to support IPv6:
> We build it into our tooling and switch it on in our gear. Our network is
> dual stack v4/v6 and has been for quite a while. But with other tools we
> don’t control, and particularly in terms of business process, we have a
> ways to go, and it’s not a priority.
>
> I want IPv6 to succeed, really.  But the global end game picture looks
> more and more bleak to me.
>

I can see how your situation is bleak

That said, google see nearly 40% of their traffic on  ipv6 in the usa ,
growth trend looks strong

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

And

Comcast (71%), Charter (52%), VZ (85%),  ATT (60 and 78%) , and T-Mobile
(95%) have the majority of their subs on ipv6

https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet.  Scale shops have
v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away, and that
makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water in ipv4.

>
> Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment.
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> -Brian
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Brian Knight" <ml at knight-networks.com>
> *To: *"Mark Andrews" <marka at isc.org>
> *Cc: *"nanog" <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Sent: *Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
> *Subject: *Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <ml at knight-networks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
> >>> 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:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > No you can’t.  You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it
> is ON THE INTERNET.  It is directly reachable via IPv6.  Selling Internet
> connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days.  Don’t
> > you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?
>
> I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all
> Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via
> IPv4...”
>
> 0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach
> some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6
> connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.
>
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Brian
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191130/2649b812/attachment.html>