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

Fri Nov 19 23:55:27 UTC 2021

>
> It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually
> released and allocated
>

No, it won't.

The biggest impediment to IPv6 adoption is that too many people invest too
much time and resources in finding ways to squeeze more blood from the IPv4
stone.

If tomorrow, RFCs were changed so every last address in the V4 space that
could be re-purposed for public use was :

- Every last one of these new IPs would be allocated years before the
majority of network devices and end hosts received software updates to work
properly.
- In the interim, a messy situation would exist with different endpoints
unable to reach endpoints numbered in these spaces , creating operational
nightmares for ISPs who frankly already have operational nightmares.
- At the end of this period when it's all figured out, we're right back
where we started. IPv4 will again be completely exhausted , and no more
going back to the well to redefine sections to get more of it.

IPv6 isn't perfect. That's not an excuse to ignore it and invest the
limited resources we have into Yet Another IPv4 Zombification Effort.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:12 PM Jim <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211119/c5c97128/attachment.html>