And that's the ballgame.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/3b5p3i/arin_just_subdivided_their_last_1718192021_and_22/
27. Jun 2015 03:06 by jra@baylink.com:
And that's the ballgame.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/3b5p3i/arin_just_subdivided_their_last_1718192021_and_22
And here's to another eternity of shitty ISPs not implementing IPv6 because
'they have enough v4 already'.
Not necessarily just shitty ISPs either. Like certain data centers attached to AS701 in Canada. Been getting the runaround from them on that for far too many years. Last answer was "we can but we're not going to because effort".
Nah, probably two more days if you just do a straight line extrapolation based on today's data. So Tuesday or Wednesday is more likely with an ever increasing confidence level of complete runout by Independence Day. I sense a metaphor in there somewhere 
Antonio Querubin
e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org
xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
the rirs have run out of their free source of short ints to rent to us.
i am sure everyone will move to ipv6 in a week. news at eleven.
randy
Randy,
How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it
even going to happen at all?
Except for AfriNIC
And so we'll get to hear "the sky is falling" one last time
Matthew Kaufman
Our fundamental issue is that an IPv4 address has no real value as
networks still give them away, it's pennies in your pocket. Everything of
use needs to have a cost to motivate for change. Establishing that now
won't create change it will first create greater conservation. There will
be a cost that will be reached before change takes place on a scale that
matters.
Networks set the false perception and customer expectation that address
space is free and readily available. Networks with plenty, still land many
customers today by handing over a class C to customer with less than 10
servers and 5 people in an office.
We have a greater supply for packets to travel than we do for addresses
required to move packets. Do you know how many packets a single IP address
can generate or utilize, if it was attached too "The World's Fastest
Internet" in someplace like Canadaland or Sweden on init7's Fiber7 ? No
matter how large the pipe the answer is always, "all of it". It's address
space we should now place a price upon. Unlike, My Space's disappearance
when Facebook arrived there is no quick jump to IPv6. There is no
coordinated effort required that involves millions of people to change
browser window content.
But to answer your question...
Everything that is handed over for free is perceived as having no value.
Therefore, IPv4 has to cost much more than the cost to change to IPv6
today. While the IPv6 addresses are free, it is expensive to change.
Businesses spend lots of money on a free lunches. It's going to take at
least the price of one good lunch per IP address per month to create the
consideration for change. That's about $30 for 2 people in California.
Offering a /48 of free IPv6 space to everyone on the planet didn't make it
happen.
There is no financial incentive to move to IPv6. In fact there is more
reason "not to change" than "to change". The new gear cost $$$ (lots of it
didn't work well and required exploration to learn that), IT people need
hours to implement (schedules are full of day-to-day issues), networks
keep growing with offerings that drop Internet costs and save everyone
money, business as usual is productive on IPv4 (business doesn't have time
for distraction), many of us get distracted by something more immediate
and interesting than buying a new wi-fi router for the home.
What will come first ?
A) the earths future core rotation changes altering the ionosphere in such
a way that we are all exposed to continuous x-rays that shorten our
lifespan
OR
B) the last IPv4 computer running will be reconfigured to IPv6
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
I believe somewhere around 2018-2025 a lot of ISPs, hosting providers etc will start to treat IPv4 as a second rate citizen and for the people still single-stacked to IPv4 by then, the Internet experience is going to become so bad that they'll beg to get IPv6 and the ones not providing it will feel severe business impact of not doing IPv6.
Mobile providers will be the first huge ones to go IPv6 only to the devices, which will mean that from your mobile device, IPv4 will most likely work worse than IPv6. Then it's downhill from there.
I'd give it another 20 yrs of v4, v6 addressing and all those letters are
to hard for us old folk, we'll find ways to make it make it work
How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4?
not in our lifetimes
At least from a large enterprise perspective, I don't really care when IPv4
is removed from that last computer. Instead, I care about how long it will
take us to eliminate IPv4 from most or all of our internal network and
confine its continued support to our dual-stacked public resources and
legacy support at our perimeter. In particular, our plans right now focus
on transitioning to a native IPv6-only wide area network providing legacy
protocol support where needed using LISP. (We already have LISP configured
and deployed to our largest sites.) We're in the process of ensuring all
clients are dual-stacked and deploying IPv6 to internal applications. We
are testing and developing a process to create IPv4 "enclaves" in our data
centers for applications that cannot timely transition fronted by NAT64 so
we can start removing IPv4 from our many smaller access network sites.
It's not really our problem or concern how long some people choose to keep
IPv4-only systems running, even as those systems increasingly become
second-class citizens on the network. Running a large, fully dual-stacked
enterprise network is overly-complex, increases costs, and imposes
limitations. As time proceeds, I expect most enterprises that haven't
already done so will reach a similar conclusion.
I've never worked at a carrier or ISP, so I have no particular insight into
the drivers pushing those sorts of networks. But the presentation by
Comcast on possible plans to provide long term legacy IPv4 support as an
overlay service suggest to me that the drivers are not completely
dissimilar from their perspective.
So it really doesn't matter that much how long IPv4 continues to exist in
one sense or another. It's the tipping point where much of the Internet
begins to treat it as a second-class citizen that really matters. I would
suggest most people will not like ending up on the wrong side of that curve.
My perspective, anyway.
Scott
Thanks for mentioning Fiber7, which is actually available in
Switzerland, not Sweden. And every Fiber7 customer gets a /48, too.
Hey Bob,
What will come first ?
A) the earths future core rotation changes altering the ionosphere in such
a way that we are all exposed to continuous x-rays that shorten our
lifespan
As a firm believer of sustainable development I furiously believe that once
this solar system becomes uninhabitable we've takenflora and fauna in galactic
Noah's Ark to next useful system. Any development prohibiting this outcome is
clearly less sustainable.
Having said that, both IPv4 and IPv6 will be obsolete before heath death of
universe, but I believe IPv4 will out-live IPv6 much like 2G GSM will outlive
3G, due to various legacy applications. None of this will matter much to us,
as it'll be deep in the edge taken care by integrators not operators.
B) the last IPv4 computer running will be reconfigured to IPv6
Never. The cost of doing so in some environments will eclipse cost of
translating at the edge, for same reason there are IPX, X.25, FrameRelay, ATM,
CLNS networks for decades to come.
All or nothing proposals are rarely data-driven decisions, but tend to be
sentimental decisions 'x is old, thus it must be gone'
Is anybody still using IPX or TokenRing?
I've heard that TokenRing is over 9000 times better for iSCSI since you are
guaranteed that the packets will not get collisions.
IPX ruled the roost, very popularly, for a little while. How long did it take to die? Why did it die? What were the triggers that pushed it over the cliff? I think there's a lot to be learned from that piece of recent history. Specifically, as a demonstration of how a "most popular" protocol can find itself ejected from the arena in the blink of an eye. I knew several people who built their career path on the assumptions of IPX. Ouch.
--lyndon
There are reasonable arguments that IPX was better than IPv4 but IPv4
had all the mind share as the standard and IPX was the proprietary
alternative. So everyone switched but more than a few were not happy
afterward when the noticed the features they had lost.
Thanks,
Donald
Bob Evans wrote:
Our fundamental issue is that an IPv4 address has no real value as
networks
still give them away, it's pennies in your pocket. Everything of use needs
to
have a cost to motivate for change. Establishing that now won't create
change it will first create greater conservation. There will be a cost
that will
be reached before change takes place on a scale that matters.
Networks set the false perception and customer expectation that address
space is free and readily available. Networks with plenty, still land many
customers today by handing over a class C to customer with less than 10
servers and 5 people in an office.We have a greater supply for packets to travel than we do for addresses
required to move packets. Do you know how many packets a single IP
address can generate or utilize, if it was attached too "The World's
Fastest
Internet" in someplace like Canadaland or Sweden on init7's Fiber7 ? No
matter how large the pipe the answer is always, "all of it". It's address
space
we should now place a price upon. Unlike, My Space's disappearance when
Facebook arrived there is no quick jump to IPv6. There is no coordinated
effort required that involves millions of people to change browser window
content.But to answer your question...
Everything that is handed over for free is perceived as having no value.
Therefore, IPv4 has to cost much more than the cost to change to IPv6
today.
While the IPv6 addresses are free, it is expensive to change.
Businesses spend lots of money on a free lunches. It's going to take at
least
the price of one good lunch per IP address per month to create the
consideration for change. That's about $30 for 2 people in California.
Offering a /48 of free IPv6 space to everyone on the planet didn't make it
happen.There is no financial incentive to move to IPv6. In fact there is more
reason
"not to change" than "to change". The new gear cost $$$ (lots of it didn't
work well and required exploration to learn that), IT people need hours
to
implement (schedules are full of day-to-day issues), networks keep growing
with offerings that drop Internet costs and save everyone money, business
as usual is productive on IPv4 (business doesn't have time for
distraction),
many of us get distracted by something more immediate and interesting
than buying a new wi-fi router for the home.What will come first ?
A) the earths future core rotation changes altering the ionosphere in such
a
way that we are all exposed to continuous x-rays that shorten our lifespan
OR
B) the last IPv4 computer running will be reconfigured to IPv6Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
Rewind the clock 20 years s/ipv4/sna/ s/ipv6/ipv4/ and/or
rewind the clock 15 years s/ipv4/tdm/ s/ipv6/voip/
and your rant is exactly what was coming out of enterprises and carriers at
those times. The only thing more constant than change in this industry is
the intransigence of the luddites that believe they are the masters of the
universe and will refuse to move with the tide. Sometimes (like in the case
of IPv4) they can build a strong seawall that will hold the tide back for a
decade, but rest assured that the tide always wins.
I have looked and can't find the references, but I distinctly remember
Businessweek or Fortune magazine covers in the late 90's with phrases to the
effect of 'SNA Forever' or 'SNA is for real business/IPv4 is an experimental
toy'. I have also been in meetings with carriers and been told "No end
customer will ever fill a DS-3. Those are inter-city exchange circuits, and
there isn't enough data in the world to fill one", having just told them we
were connecting CERN to Cal-tech.
To the point of the original question, look to history for some indication.
While people in the late 90's were busy trying to figure out how to
translate web pages to SNA terminals, within ~ 5 years, the noise was gone.
I am sure you will still find pockets of legacy SNA in use, but nobody
cares. Then look at the education system. Once you retire-out the tenured
dinosaurs that are still teaching classfull IPv4, followed by a generation
of upstarts that never learned about those tiny 32-bit locators which could
only possibly identify <1% of the connected devices they are aware of, it
will die off. Until then, it will move to the backwaters where nobody cares.
When you ignore the costs of maintaining an ever crumbling foundation, and
just look at the cost of replacement, then you can mentally justify staying
in the past. If you are honest about the TCO, and include both the wizardry
created by the network masters and the difficult to quantify increased cost
of all the software that has to work around that, then a cost based analysis
is valid. Unfortunately there has been enough myopic focus on
network-specific costs on this list that a decade has been lost that could
have been used to update software and reduce the future timeframe that IPv4
needs to be supported.
While many on this list have bought into the hatred of the automated
tunneling in Windows, that was put there specifically to provide a working
API for the application developers. Breaking the stalemate between
lack-of-apps that might use a network and lack-of-network on which to
develop those apps, was possible by having the API mask out the lack of
function in the underlying network. Unfortunately rather than enhance that
capability, the angry mob took up arms and blocked it. The only thing wrong
with 6to4 was the one-liner that said you could only announce a /12 into the
IPv6 DFZ. If everyone had ignored that and set up local relays announcing
the appropriate /20-48 matching their IPv4 prefix into the DFZ, and the
IPv4-anycast only to their own customers, you would have had the
functionality of 6rd in deployed code at least 5 years earlier. The fact
that it was vilified rather than adapted speaks volumes about the
unwillingness of the community to face the inevitable.
There was a recent comment on the list that the IETF pushed dual-stack out
the door and patted themselves on the back, which is absolutely untrue. I
was the one that pushed the dual-stack mantra, and was put in the position
of WG chair because I was standing in the back of the room during the BOF
for the transition WG mumbling to myself 'been there, done that, doesn't
scale' at the proposals being tossed out by the research community. Having
just transitioned a collection of protocols to IPv4, the thing that worked
best at a SYSTEM level was to deploy the new protocol alongside the old one,
and let each app move in its own timeframe. Yes that was duplicate effort at
the network level, but there are many more parts to the system, and from my
experience those cost an order of magnitude more. While dual-stack does
require IPv4, it was over 15 years ago when that statement was made, while
it was still possible. In any case, the point of dual-stack was not to solve
all problems, just to set a baseline of the long term network that apps
could move to. For the cases where it was not economical to move the app,
wizardry was appropriate, and the WG was defining additional corner-case
tools. In another unfortunate case, one of those escaped over the objection
of the chairs and was forced onto the standards track because several AD's
insisted we needed a standard translator. That set back the process another
3-5 years, but the bigger failing was that the responsible AD (on this list)
decided that 'we had enough tools already, we needed deployment', and shut
the WG down. I really don't know what additional tools might have developed
or been identified, and I really don't care about the WG closing, but this
was not a case of one-size-fits-all and pat yourself on the back.
This has been a long-winded way of saying, IPv4 will be replaced EVENTUALLY,
and as Randy said, 'news at 11'.
Tony
I agree with Tony, but at the same time, I also find myself having a hard
time
rendering an opinion as to timeframe. It'll probably be surprising, but as
someone
who joined the Internet in the 1990s when IRC was still the pinnacle of what
we could do, it's hard to imagine v4 ever going away completely. Maybe a
hold-
over for legacy services a bit like AM or shortwave radio?
Uncertain, but an intriguing thought experiment.
What's the ratio of mobile (cellular) endpoints to non-mobile devices? And
we know that mobile continues to grow faster than fixed endpoints -- at what
point will the scales naturally tip to IPv6?