Seriously? You do realize that the InteropNet actually has to provide a real service to the exhibitors and attendees of the show, right? This year's network will support v6, but a v6-only network is just not a practical way to supply real network connectivity to customers, yet.
also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months
in ARIN allocation timeframes.
There is no cure, pls to be rolling out IPv6 2 years ago.
-chris
Does a trade show really need 16M IPv4 addresses though? How many other /8's were assigned way back when IPv4 was being given out so freely that ARIN would laugh at if that org applied today for that /8?
If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations would that buy us?
If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations would
that buy us?
Not enough.
[...]
If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations
would that buy us?
We allocate RIRs approximately one /8 per month. So you'd have to reclaim 12 /8s to extend the allocation pool by one year.
Regards,
Leo
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> writes:
also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months
in ARIN allocation timeframes.
1 /8 at global IANA free pool runout time (which is the only
reasonable way to think about it...) will buy us about 24 days on a
global consumption basis... assuming there isn't an end times land
rush.
-r
so... just for grins, how do all those w/ bits leftover
from their "overly generous" inital allocations (they forced
me to take a /20 when all i really needed was a /28 multihomed)
find partners who are willing to use the rest of those bits
to get the delegation in question up to a comfortable 85% utilization?
are you and Marty going to open up a matching service?
co-op "match.com" or "e-harmony"? craigslist?
--bill
When do you think that 1/8, 2/8 and 50/8 will start showing up as live, assigned addresses.
I don't see any of them coming in on my core routers yet.
Might want to double check you aren't filtering, as parts of 1/8 and 2/8
have been intermittently announced by RIR's in debogonizing efforts over
the last few months. Routing wise, this really isn't different from the
space being assigned - better to clear up any filtering and identify
routing problems or renumbering efforts you may need now before the
space gets allocated, probably later this year.
In fact, parts of 2/8 are being announced right now for debogon-izing:
route-views>sh ip bgp 2.0.0.0/8 longer-prefixes
BGP table version is 2323163774, local router ID is 128.223.51.103
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
internal,
r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
* 2.0.0.0/16 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267
30132 12654 I
--Heather
<WHINY-OLDER-THAN-I-AM>
I remember the days of Ron Natalie running around with a cherry picker in San Jose, and the whole point of the network being to test interoperability, so that things would and did break (and then we fixed them). If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close to being ready? Or is it both?
</WHINY-OLDER-THAN-I-AM>
The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG list believe that v6 is at all ready to be run without any v4 underpinnings and provide a real service to a customer base?
The lack of v6 readiness for a long time (and to some extent today) seems to have been locked in a vicious circle.
Many users haven't been pushing vendors for v6 capabilities in their products (software and hardware) because they either didn't know about it, and/or didn't perceive it as important. OS developers seemed to be the most ahead of the curve on this, with usable v6 stacks available for most modern OSen for several years, and close to a decade in some cases.
Many providers for a long time weren't implementing v6 because, while many knew it needed to happen, customers weren't pushing for it, and many network equipment vendors didn't have solid v6 implementations. Content providers would also fall into this bucket.
Many vendors for a long time weren't making v6 development and support a priority because customers weren't pushing for it, so they didn't see a financial reason to do so.
jms
very - very close. if you have fewer than 50,000 nodes
in your net, and its not topologically dense, then you -can-
run a native IPv6 net w/o dual stack (save on the edge translator
and the DNS (and DHCP - if you have the patches)) for all of
them. I've done it - on several networks.
--bill
> If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of
> testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close
> to being ready? Or is it both?The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG
list believe that v6 is at all ready to be run without any v4
underpinnings and provide a real service to a customer base?
I do. (And no, I'm not fantasising, my day work is involving working on
productising it, and mostly that's involving supplementary things, not
the essentials of a providing an IPv6 capable service).
The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG
list believe that v6 is at all ready to be run without any v4
underpinnings and provide a real service to a customer base?
If you're an MPLS provider (as we are), the lack of IPv6 LDP is a major
showstopper.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
In a message written on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:12:48AM -0400, Brandon Ross wrote:
The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG
list believe that v6 is at all ready to be run without any v4
underpinnings and provide a real service to a customer base?
Is it ready, absolutely. Is it pretty, not quite. But that's ok,
it will take some time in the real world to get the spit polish
IPv4 has had 25+ years to earn.
The issue is not is IPv6 ready, it's how do you interoperate between
the IPv6 world and the IPv4 world. Dual stack was/is the answer,
but with IPv4 running out it won't be for much longer. Is the answer a
transition mechanism or cold turkey? It probably depends on your
situation.
Interop long ago ceased being a interop shootout and became a 8x11 color glossy
trade show. I think the last time any actual *testing* happened at Interop, the
guys hooking up the network drops were wearing t-shirts that said "Yes, the
subnet mask really *is* 255.255.252.0", and anybody who whined that their gear
only supported octet-boundary subnets was told "And next year, it will be
255.255.250.0".
Anybody got production gear that *still* doesn't do non-octet-boundary subnets?
Christopher Morrow wrote:
also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months
in ARIN allocation timeframes.There is no cure, pls to be rolling out IPv6 2 years ago.
Yes I understand. But a show like that going IPv6 only could provide some sort of incentive. And at the same time you gain the goodwill and comfy feeling of having returned a /8. And I am sure that the people designing the network are able to find a solution for those without IPv6 aware equipment to still get connectivity.
Regards,
Jeroen