A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality. What occurred to me is there is a satellite sitting in storage that would provide such content:
Al Gore pushed for this satellite, Triana, to provide those on earth with a view of the planet among its scientific goals. The Republicans referred to it as an "overpriced screen saver," though the effect even of just the camera component on people's lives and how they treat the planet could be considerable.
By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the still images and video from servers only connected to native IPv6 bandwidth, the government would provide both a strong incentive for end users to want to move to IPv6, and a way to get the people of this planet to stop from time to time and ponder the future of the earth.
Of course getting this done any time soon would require getting the present administration to reverse its bias against Triana and global warming. But it seemed to me an interesting way to advance two goals in synergy.
By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the still images and
video from servers only connected to native IPv6 bandwidth, the
government would provide both a strong incentive for end users to want
to move to IPv6, and a way to get the people of this planet to stop
from time to time and ponder the future of the earth.
How do you stop people from creating IPv4 gateways to the service?
While that may work (I am not going to get into the politics), I think the
other poster has a good point that people would create gateways. Actually, a
better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing
out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got
IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with a
web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain squatter already registered
it).
For the most part the ISP and provider community is not going to put
resources into IPv6 unless there is a market demand for IPv6. By making end
users feel like they are missing out on something or not as 'cool' since they
don't have it, you will create a market demand. The whole model of making
something appealing or making someone feel left out without something is a
science that has been exploited by marketing groups for years. If an ISP
loses customers because it doesn't have 'cool' IPv6 and another does you can
probably bet your money that they will be launching a 'new' 'cool' IPv6
product.
This all boils down to simple economics.... supply and demand. When the
market has a strong demand for something the technical challenges tend to get
mastered faster than when there is not a market demand. As far as creating a
demand for something technical that people don't understand, I think that is
is very possible just look at some of the crazy fads (remember the neon
lights under cars) that people buy.
like 'got IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my
internet and you don't" with a web url like www.getipv6.com
(oops, some domain squatter already registered it).
For the most part the ISP and provider community is not
going to put resources into IPv6 unless there is a market
demand for IPv6.
And unless there are IPv6-knowledgeable people to hire, or already on
staff.
Someday IPv6 will be a routine part of training and education programs
like CCIE. But right now it would be nice if more people would submit
info for the ARIN IPv6 Wiki - ARIN's Vault page.
Right now it points to several ways of building a home IPv6 lab network
using virtual machines, a couple of papers/presentations, one free book
and some other miscellanous bits.
Any other ISP-oriented material on IPv6 and its deployment would be
welcome.
What I hope for in the near future is a consortium of
small-to-very-small providers together in one place hashing
out IPv6 addressing plans that make sense and are scalable
for our far-less-than academic size networks, right down to
even just a simple flat network.
Yes, and I was hoping that ARIN's wiki pages here
might be the venue for that discussion since a wiki is better for
developing a collaborative document than a mailing list.
Also, it does not help that I am the only person in our
organization that knows anything about IPv6, hence I have
nobody internally I can actually throw ideas at.
I think that this is part of the reason why ARIN started the GetIPv6
wiki site.
Actually, a
better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing
out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got
IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with a
web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain squatter already registered
it).
Brian,
I offer you two words: Ford Edsel.
It doesn't matter how clever you make the marketing campaign if on
finding out what the product actually is the customers decide they
don't want it.
This all boils down to simple economics.... supply and demand.
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:
1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses
At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2, even to
the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source of demand
as well.
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:
1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses
At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a
negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2,
even to the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source
of demand as well.
If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well, please take that argument to PPML. As of today, if you qualify for PIv4 space, you qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to pay the fees for one of them.
If you're claiming that you have a PIv6 block and ISPs won't route it, please publicly shame the offending parties here so the rest of us will know not to give them our money.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Actually, a
better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing
out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got
IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with a
web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain squatter already registered
it).
Brian,
I offer you two words: Ford Edsel.
It doesn't matter how clever you make the marketing campaign if on
finding out what the product actually is the customers decide they
don't want it.
This all boils down to simple economics.... supply and demand.
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:
1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses
not to state the obvious but:
3. reachability instead of a world of black holes
and walled gardens.
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:
1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses
At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a
negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2,
even to the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source
of demand as well.
If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well, please take that argument to PPML. As of today, if you qualify for PIv4 space, you qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to pay the fees for one of them.
Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user allocations.
At the internet access customer level perhaps. As a hosting provider, try telling your customers "here's your IPv4 /32. If you need more IPs, just use NAT." and see how many customers you retain.
The problem is, when we can't get more IPv4 IPs, and we have to assign addresses to customers, what do we do? Give them IPv6 IPs only? Then how does the IPv4 internet (all those people who didn't need or want v6 because they've got NAT) get to those customers?
At some point, everyone's going to need to upgrade in order to "stay on the internet."
At this point its not an ARIN problem. The requirement from the
operators (like us) is that ARIN keep the total number of PI prefixes
to a minimum. So long as that requirement stands, ARIN is doing the
best it can.
Having recently dealt with the 244k IPv4 TCAM limit on my 6500 sup
2's, I'll stipulate that the requirement has merit. But lets not pass
buck; its our requirement, not ARIN's.
Also, to be clear: if you meet the requirements for IPv4 addresses
today then you can get IPv6 addresses today. This is not parity with
IPv4: a large number of IPv4 addresses are presently assigned to
organizations who met the requirements of their day but do not meet
today's requirements.
If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well,
please take that argument to PPML. As of today, if you qualify
for PIv4 space, you qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and
you only have to pay the fees for one of them.
Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user allocations.
If you're an end user, you pay $100/yr for _all_ your resources. If you're an LIR, you pay either your v4 or v6 maintenance fees, whichever is greater.
I don't know the status of the v6 initial assignment fee; I think that the v6 initial allocation fee was waived at one point. If they're not waived now, that'd be a one-time cost of $1250.
The only $500/yr fee is to be a "General Member", which is how non-LIRs get to vote in ARIN elections. You don't need to be a member to get a v6 assignment.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
>eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
>demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
#1 has been partially mitigated by NAT, and perhaps only temporarily.
The last chapter of that book is yet to be written.
John,
I hated NAT when back when it was called "circuit level proxying," and
I still do. Give me a packet filter any day. But that doesn't matter.
What matters is that a huge number of installations have NAT dead
center in their network security policies. Asking them to deploy IPv6
without NAT is asking them to refactor long held security policies as
a -prerequisite- to using IPv6.
And without IPv6 PI for all, asking them to give up NAT is also asking
them to give up the best tool they have to mitigate the cost of
changing ISPs.
Both of those so they can spend lots of time and money deploying a
protocol which offers them what exactly? I hope you see the problem
here.
Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user
allocations.
Seth,
You still pay the up-front but you pay only one annual fee. For an end
user (i.e. PI space) that would have been $100 anyway. Where it makes
a difference is for service providers: they pay a lot more than
$100/yr but won't pay any more for the IPv6 addresses.
Given that the SOHO and hobbyist users don't qualify for IPv6 PI
addresses, the fact that its difficult for them to afford those
addresses is moot.
I'm pretty sure it's still being waived (at least for ISP/LIRs). I just applied for and received Atlantic.net's v6 /32 without paying any fees in advance. IIRC, with IPv4 initial allocations, you have to pay in advance.
Let me spin you a tale. More of a nightmare really.
During early phase of free pool exhaustion, when you can't deliver
more IPv4 addresses to your customers you lose the customer to a
hosting provider who still has addresses left. So sorry. Those will be
some nasty years. Unless you're Cogent, Level3 or one of the others
sitting pretty on a /8. They'll be in phat city.
What should you do about it? Buy stock.
And make no mistake: it will drag on and on. Even when everybody is
well and truly out, there are a heck of a lot of addresses that can be
reclaimed in dialup pools, residential DSL pools and other uses
retroactively deemed wasteful by converting them to NAT. And with NAT
inbound you can load a lot of functions on a single IP address.
How long will it drag on? I'm not that great an oracle. But let me
offer you a mild heresy: when you combine aggressive CIDR with double
and triple NAT do you really believe that 4B addresses can't be enough
for the pushing 7B people on Earth? Must it ever truly end?
IPv4 forever. One possible price for failing to deliver an IPv6 that
customers want today.
During early phase of free pool exhaustion, when you can't deliver
more IPv4 addresses to your customers you lose the customer to a
hosting provider who still has addresses left. So sorry. Those will be
some nasty years. Unless you're Cogent, Level3 or one of the others
sitting pretty on a /8. They'll be in phat city.
this is a very real and significant problem. a very small fraction of
the arin membership holds the vast majority of the address space. it
would be interesting to ask arin to give us the cdf of this.
given that, the scenario you present is likely to be very real.
What's your crystal ball say? Which ones and when?
And make no mistake: it will drag on and on. Even when everybody is
well and truly out, there are a heck of a lot of addresses that can be
reclaimed in dialup pools, residential DSL pools and other uses
retroactively deemed wasteful by converting them to NAT.
I suppose that's a likely last resort. Reduce, reuse, recycle. If you don't have large dial pools to scavenge, you're SOL?
AFAIK, this [NATing consumer access] is already being done by some of the larger providers in Europe. I wonder how the heck they deal with abuse issues. i.e. When complaints come in about abusive/illegal activity from a NAT outside IP, how do you know which inside IP customer is to blame? Keep extensive netflow data generated by the NAT router?
IPv4 forever. One possible price for failing to deliver an IPv6 that
customers want today.
Is it really that they don't want it or that they just don't care...as long as the web works, email works, and they can do whatever else they generally do online? A massive installed generally apathetic base is an awful lot of momentum to overcome.
And last I read, even that ipv6 free porn thing was vaporware.
> Actually, a
> better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing
> out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got
> IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with a
> web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain squatter already registered
> it).
Brian,
I offer you two words: Ford Edsel.
It doesn't matter how clever you make the marketing campaign if on
finding out what the product actually is the customers decide they
don't want it.
> This all boils down to simple economics.... supply and demand.
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:
1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses
At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
Those people don't know any better, because they probably haven't used
a NAT free Internet. Most North Koreans probably aren't asking for
democracy either.
Have you used a NAT free Internet?
So if more addresses was "thoroughly mitigated by NAT", when were these
problems that NAT creates fixed?
