Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Fri Nov 19 20:11:18 UTC 2021

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:24 PM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>
...
> Some (not me) might argue it could (further) hamper IPv6 deployment by diverting limited resources.

It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually
released and allocated
Assuming the RIRs would ultimately like to provision the usage of
addresses within their own policies
that the new address releases are exclusively for  'IPv6 Transition
Tech.',  such as CGN NAT addresses,
And make the proviso that new Allocations should be revoked/reduced on
the basis of Non-Use alone  if found not
being used highly-efficiently --- reducing the cost of  "New" V4
addresses  but Restricting who can get the
allocations and for what..  May make the scarcity "Fairer"  between
Older existing Network Service Providers
versus  Brand new Network Service Providers  who did not get to start
with pre-assigned IPv4,
 thus Helping V6 deployment.

An important thing to hamper IPv6 deployment is bound to
be newfound difficulty getting IPv4 numbers, and there are a large number of
hosting and access network service providers pre-distributed IPv4,  so
currently IPv4 is
scarce enough to discourage new providers deploying IPv6 (because it
will discourage
new providers starting and making any networks at all), But  because of existing
assignments, IPv4 is not scarce enough for existing providers to feel
immediate pressure or need/desire to provide end to end IPv6 connectivity ---
not when they can potentially pay up for more IPv4 and gobble up other
NSPs through
acquisitions.

IPv4 numbers are required in order for network service providers to
deploy IPv6 to
subscribers, and for those subscribers to have connectivity to the
majority of networks
--- If you cannot get the IPv4, then more likely that new network
service provider
does not get created and offer service in the first place.   Alternatively
new service providers find a costly source of some IPv4 numbers and pay up
only to result in eventual necessity of deploying IPv6 services at a
higher-price:
it places existing providers with legacy IPv4 assignments at competitive
advantage, and gives existing providers reason to decline or delay fully
deploying IPv6 end-to-end.

Even if you want to give your Subscribers IPv6 only and utilize no V4
addresses for them
like some large mobile providers;  you still end up needing a
technology such as 464XLAT
or CGN in the end,  and you are still going to require a substantial
sum of IPv4 addresses
in order to do it.

>
> > What will it *cost* to upgrade
> > every node on the Internet?  And *how long* might it take?

You need an upgrade timeframe for "cost to upgrade" to make sense.  It
is unlikely any node will proceed forever without any upgrades - After
a sufficient number of years, or decades have passed;  You will get to
a point where every node, or almost every node had to have new
software or replacement hardware for multiple reasons at some point,
once a new version of Windows fixes your issue,  your one IPv4 tweak
is 0.001% of the cost or less of the new version release..    For
example,  Windows XP devices are almost nowhere to be seen anymore,
less than 1%   -   If the time frame is about 5 years,  then by that
time most server/personal computers ought to have been replaced, or at
least running a newer major OS version.

The upgrade have a cost, but at that point there are numerous reasons
it is required, and the upgrade cost is subsumed by the cost required
just to maintain any system  (With 5+ years, the upgrade cost goes
down to almost zero compared to the cumulative Annual
upkeep/depreciation).

Of course upgrades that must be done immediately, or within a short
schedule are more expensive.

--
-JH