http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda, a researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users may experience some glitches, such as people using VPN software to connect with their offices or users of point-to-point software such as Skype, he adds.
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one. Set-top boxes are generally IPv4; anyone with a TV is likely to need to upgrade at least the software. Skype is not yet IPv6-capable, and will need one an update. "The ISPs will take care of this" is a really empty hope. The ISPs will take care of their part, but users should expect that there will be things jiggling over the coming couple of years.
Hmm, I recognize a lot of that article. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what's heavy quoting and paraphrasing?
http://www.returnpath.net/blog/received/2011/02/end-of-ipv4/
(I don't mind, really -- the word needs to get out, and marketers always resist technology unless there's either guaranteed ROI or guaranteed FUD.)
> They missed an important point.
>
> > Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible
> > impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda,
a
> > researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users
> > may experience some glitches, such as people using VPN software to
> > connect with their offices or users of point-to-point software such
> > as Skype, he adds.
>
> Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc)
> is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one.Speaking of which: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/020811-cisco-
linksys-ipv6.html
Key quote in that article from Cisco explains why they are still behind.
"IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a range of new services and improved user experiences."
Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Internet" thing. It isn't. It is imperative in keeping THIS generation of internet running. This has nothing to do with any new services or improving anyone's experience. This is about maintaining existing services and even being able to have an experience at all. It is going to become increasingly difficult to maintain ubiquitous v4 service. In fact, v6 is going to degrade some people's experience slightly because the larger protocol overhead means less payload for a given size packet meaning it will take more packets to transfer a given amount of data.
Apparently some people in this world believe that IPv6 somehow creates a "different" internet. It doesn't. It simply adds more house numbers to the existing streets.
Reread what they wrote. IPv6 is "foundational" to the next-generation Internet. If it's not, then IETF should have added 96 bits and left the rest of it alone.
I can't blame Cisco for making sure how they implement the linksys is appropriate for the long term. It's important that they get certain things right, as future improvements of the Internet DO depend on IPv6 being functional.
Jack
Thanks to ITU for bringing the Next Generation Network (NGN), which was in fact IPv6+License but then got everyone confused, side tracked, etc...
These are Internet marketers you're talking about, hardly the most honest souls in the world 
Paul
p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you..
p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you..
What's the difference between a used car salesman and a network equipment
salesman?
The used care salesman knows when he's lying to you 
They have had a #@!@ decade to add IPv6 support. They shouldn't need
anymore time. Part of the reason we are in this mess is their delay
in delivering products.
Mark
Nah. The network side of things probably won't be too bad. Corporate world will have it a little rough, and the applications/appliances which haven't bothered with IPv6 will have it the worst.
Jack
And the used car saleman probably knows how to drive...
Regards, K.
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user
to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and
rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
already) . If larger ISP's provide their own tunnels, they could
use private IPv4 space for customers to tunnel IPv6 over, and the
only issue would be a few router settings to change.
According to test-ipv6.com my home network has now a score of 10/10
for both IPv4 and IPv6. Didn't take very long to do, maybe 10
minutes.
Initial speed tests show only a marginal slowdown of IPv6 compared
to IPv4.
However, if I look at what would be involved at my $dayjob to support
IPv6, that would be far more involved. What's more, I cannot justify
the cost to support IPv6 only clients, as there are none yet. For
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4
connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6. I won't
have to worry about this until most major content providers support
IPv6-only clients.
So, I think we'll transition to a situation where for some purposes
(Skype, gaming, file-sharing) there will be a benefit for (tunneled)
IPv6 compared to (NATed) IPv4, but for simple content providers
there will still be no incentive to leave IPv4.
For the software there is a similar scenario. Clients typically use
a web browser or other high-volume popular application. It is easy
to add IPv6 support to these. However, content providers use many
different pieces to provider their sites, including custom interfaces
to databases etc. It's a huge task to make all of those work with
IPv6.
Again, it seems it is far easier to deal with the relatively
homogeneous base of users for IPv6, compared to the fragmented and
irregular market of content providers.
-Geert
From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch@adacore.com]
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user
to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and
rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway. In many markets, they don't.
Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer
to swap routers. And find the capital to pay for them. And have a
system for updating the firmware and configurations of those
devices. Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new
gateway, when the one they have is still functioning, and might
even be brand new.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4
connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you
depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit
number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use
IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the
user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP
addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address,
or record unique visitors by IP address.
It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that
you'd panic.
Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers
are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web
hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's
website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all
their customers and just do it, than to track which customers
asked for IPv6 explicitly.
So, I think we'll transition to a situation where for some purposes
(Skype, gaming, file-sharing) there will be a benefit for (tunneled)
IPv6 compared to (NATed) IPv4, but for simple content providers
there will still be no incentive to leave IPv4.
. . .
Again, it seems it is far easier to deal with the relatively
homogeneous base of users for IPv6, compared to the fragmented and
irregular market of content providers.
That sounds heterogenous: web-browsing-only users, and
peer-to-peer-application-using users.
Lee
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
Sure, but the same thing is possible with a cheap 6-year-old sub-$50
popular Linksys wifi router, see Linksys WRT54G IPv6 Howto | Open-Systems Group
for example. The point is that it can be cheap, relatively easy
and painless for users to upgrade.
Basically, it should not have to cost anything extra to set up
new users for IPv6. The same hardware that handles IPv4 today
can be programmed to do IPv6.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4
connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you
depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit
number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use
IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the
user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP
addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address,
or record unique visitors by IP address.
It might als
o increase latency, but probably not so much that
you'd panic.
Users don't care about IP geo-location or anti-DDOS measures, or
any of the other reasons you list. These are things content providers
care about, but they don't get to choose wether their viewers use
IPv4 or IPv6.
Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers
are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web
hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's
website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all
their customers and just do it, than to track which customers
asked for IPv6 explicitly.
As long as a majority of users come over IPv4, better anti-DDOS
measures or anti-abuse procedures for IPv6 are not going to make
any difference. "When you DOS my site, please use IPv6, so we
can better find out your location and more effectively block
your IP address."
Users are going to drive adoption of IPv6, if and when they
find a "killer-app" where IPv6 can provide usability that (heavily
NATed) IPv4 can't. This could be better file-sharing tools, lower
latency online gaming, better long-distance video-calling or whatever,
as long as the benefits will be worth the relatively small
(<$50) investment of money and time.
For content providers, as long as 90+% of the net is IPv4 only and
essentially nobody is IPv6 only, providing dual-stack support is just
adding cost for little or no gain in viewership. Content providers
often depend on dozens if not hundreds of pieces of hardware and
software to provider their services, so supporting IPv6 is vastly
most expensive than it is for users to take advantage of it.
In my case, the upgrade to IPv6 was free. There must be many more
using an Apple router (any model, Express, Extreme or otherwise)
that can upgrade to IPv6 for free. However, I can't list any benefit
from doing so, except from going to test-ipv6.com and seeing a 10/10
score. Basically, you have to be a geek to be interested in IPv6.
That's got to change, before there will be any meaningful shifts.
-Geert
From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch@adacore.com]
Basically, it should not have to cost anything extra to set up
new users for IPv6. The same hardware that handles IPv4 today
can be programmed to do IPv6.
That is not the case for a significant number of home gateways
and other consumer electronics. This is a market where a few
dollars saved in flash or RAM means market share or profitability.
Only in high-end gateways is there capacity for IPv6 (see the
plans from Linksys, Netgear). You can argue about whether
this "should" be true, but the manufacturers say they can't add
IPv6 to the current low-end gateways.
>> the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4
>> connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
> [why content providers hate NAT and will dual-stack]
Users don't care about IP geo-location or anti-DDOS measures, or
any of the other reasons you list. These are things content providers
care about, but they don't get to choose wether their viewers use
IPv4 or IPv6.
You were arguing, I thought, that content providers would stay
on IPv4-only for a long time, and that web users would never move
until content was IPv6-only. I disagree with the first part: most web
content will be dual-stack, so that as much traffic as possible will
be over IPv6.
> Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers
> are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web
> hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's
> website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all
> their customers and just do it, than to track which customers
> asked for IPv6 explicitly.
As long as a majority of users come over IPv4, better anti-DDOS
measures or anti-abuse procedures for IPv6 are not going to make
any difference. "When you DOS my site, please use IPv6, so we
can better find out your location and more effectively block
your IP address."
That's not what I was saying.
Since anti-DDOS in IPv4 will inflict collateral damage, interfering
with innocent users' experience of the site, web content providers
should have a strong preference for IPv6. Meaning they will make
it available, and possibly promote it as much as possible.
Users are going to drive adoption of IPv6, if and when they
find a "killer-app" where IPv6 can provide usability that (heavily
NATed) IPv4 can't. This could be better file-sharing tools, lower
latency online gaming, better long-distance video-calling or whatever,
as long as the benefits will be worth the relatively small
(<$50) investment of money and time.
The killer app is the avoidance of CGN: head-to-head gaming, p2p,
SIP, remote access, etc.
ISPs are deploying IPv6
(http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2011/11_pr_ipv6_transition_020111.html)
Web content providers are deploying IPv6 (IPv6 Basics, News, Guides & Tutorials | Internet Society)
It's bad that home gateways need replacing
(http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9208718/Cisco_Linksys_routers_still_
don_t_support_IPv6?taxonomyId=16)
And consumer electronics are dangerously far behind.
For content providers, as long as 90+% of the net is IPv4 only and
Less than a year before > 10% of the net has IPv6.
You read it here first.
essentially nobody is IPv6 only, providing dual-stack support is just
adding cost for little or no gain in viewership. Content providers
often depend on dozens if not hundreds of pieces of hardware and
software to provider their services, so supporting IPv6 is vastly
most expensive than it is for users to take advantage of it.
Cisco and Netgear (see article above) say that essentially every user
needs a new gateway in the $150 range. You already have one--
excellent, but the high end does not dominate the market. You're
arguing that web content provider costs are greater than $100 per
user?
I don't mean to trivialize the effort content providers must make.
But to suggest that it's enormously higher than any other
segment's investment, and has no benefit, is misguided.
Lee
And a lot of that depends upon how you implement LSN.
* LSN per pop or a uber mega LSN?
* How many customers per address? 2 or 200?
It's bad that home gateways need replacing
It's not neccessarily bad. There are a lot of older devices out there
and technology has progressed a couple of generations since then. That
spells market opportunity for manufacturers of IPv6 gateways,
particularly at the higher end of the market where the impact of the
recession has not hit as hard. And given that a gateway is a box
running Linux with some network interfaces, there is an opportunity
for added features, maybe even so far as an Android style apps market.
The general public is now learning that the Internet is going through
a transition and that IPv6 is future proof. The smart money would now
be putting gateways on the market to sell to early adopters. And the
creative money would be looking for a way to link the IPv6 gateways
with an IPv6 home server that runs apps from an apps market. Those
apps could be anything from a backup of your blog to a SIP PABX.
--Michael Dillon
P.S. if anyone has money to invest, contact me and let's talk.
In message <8B082D10-A0EA-4012-8656-E60DD7EC76D0@adacore.com>, Geert Bosch write
s:
>> Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
>> an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
>=20
> $150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
Sure, but the same thing is possible with a cheap 6-year-old sub-$50=20
popular Linksys wifi router, see =
Linksys WRT54G IPv6 Howto | Open-Systems Group
for example. The point is that it can be cheap, relatively easy=20
and painless for users to upgrade.Basically, it should not have to cost anything extra to set up=20
new users for IPv6. The same hardware that handles IPv4 today
can be programmed to do IPv6.>> the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4
>> connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.=20
>=20
> Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you
> depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit
> number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use
> IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the
> user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP
> addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address,
> or record unique visitors by IP address.
> It might als> o increase latency, but probably not so much that
> you'd panic.
Users don't care about IP geo-location or anti-DDOS measures, or
any of the other reasons you list. These are things content providers
care about, but they don't get to choose wether their viewers use
IPv4 or IPv6.> Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers
> are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web
> hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's
> website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all
> their customers and just do it, than to track which customers
> asked for IPv6 explicitly.
As long as a majority of users come over IPv4, better anti-DDOS
measures or anti-abuse procedures for IPv6 are not going to make
any difference. "When you DOS my site, please use IPv6, so we
can better find out your location and more effectively block=20
your IP address."Users are going to drive adoption of IPv6, if and when they
find a "killer-app" where IPv6 can provide usability that (heavily
NATed) IPv4 can't. This could be better file-sharing tools, lower
latency online gaming, better long-distance video-calling or whatever,=20=
as long as the benefits will be worth the relatively small=20
(<$50) investment of money and time.
Or ISP's will drive it because they don't want the long term costs
of LSN and pay the handful of CPE vendors to develop and ship
products with IPv6 enabled and not ship IPv4 only products. $1 per
IPv6 enabled product sold for N years. Just have a check box for
the ISPs participating in the scheme + other when doing the warranty
registation.
For content providers, as long as 90+% of the net is IPv4 only and
essentially nobody is IPv6 only, providing dual-stack support is just
adding cost for little or no gain in viewership. Content providers
often depend on dozens if not hundreds of pieces of hardware and
software to provider their services, so supporting IPv6 is vastly
most expensive than it is for users to take advantage of it.
And how much of that is already IPv6 capable?
Most LSNs will probably be regional collections of LSN boxes
that are (somewhat randomly) load balanced.
Owen