Millions of IPs don't matter in the face of X billions of people, and
XX-XXX billions of devices - and this is just the near term estimate.
(And don't forget utilization efficiency - Millions of IPs is not millions
of customers served.)
Do IPv6.
/TJ
As someone growing in the end of ipv4, its all fake. Sure, the rirs
will
run out, but that's boring. Don't believe the fake auction sites.
Fair price of IP at the end is $1 for bad Rep $2 for barely used, $3 for
no
Fair point. There are some situations that do need more than most, but
aren't they the ones that should be on ipv6 already???
I know a few are shouldn't I be on ipv6 and that's fair too. I'm
plqnnning some speaking engagements to cover that. Its not blind and
ignoring.
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created. Why is v4 a commodity and asset? Where
is the audits. I can justify my 6 /14s, can you still?
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created. Why is v4 a commodity and asset? Where
is the audits. I can justify my 6 /14s, can you still?
You seem to be missing something, it is called Metcalfe's Law, google it.
There is no long-term solution for you using ipv4 and me using ipv6. To
derive value from the internet, we all need to be on one technology that
supports end to end communication for us all.
CB
> Millions of IPs don't matter in the face of X billions of people, and
> XX-XXX billions of devices - and this is just the near term estimate.
> (And don't forget utilization efficiency - Millions of IPs is not
> millions of customers served.)
>
> Do IPv6.
> /TJ
>
> >
> > As someone growing in the end of ipv4, its all fake. Sure, the rirs
> will
> > run out, but that's boring. Don't believe the fake auction sites.
> > Fair price of IP at the end is $1 for bad Rep $2 for barely used, $3
for
> no
> > spam and $4 for legacy. Stop the inflation. Millions of IPS
exist,
Oh I so agree with this one. But alas yes, IPv4's days are counted
and I doubt there's any turning back.
As a NA myself, I see day on day where smaller ISPs are forced to dish
out large network blocks (/16s) to be able to have access to large
unefficiently planned broadband networks in order to service PPPoE
terminations (at least, here in ZA). These ISPs are forced to 'hand
out' /16 networks for the large telco's to distribute to their
respective BRAS devices.... Meanwhile, the ISP does not even have 20K
customers - nevermind the fact that more than likely 50% of that
customer base is not even 'always' connected...
It's due to waisting like this, that the shortage is there and that
other players with legitimate requirements (such as going provider
independant) cannot obtain address space. And it is continueing to
this very day. I'm definately all for proper audits, stricter audits,
and more importantly the releasing of unused address space back to the
respective registries.
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created. Why is v4 a commodity and asset? Where
is the audits. I can justify my 6 /14s, can you still?
That ship sailed a long time time ago. Can some IPv4 space be recovered by 'auditing' consumers of IPv4? Possibly. Does the amount of space that would be recovered justify the effort (economic, administrative, legal, technical)? No. IPv6 is the way to go.
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
Don't forget that IPv4, in the form we know it, was never intended to go into production. It's a lab experiment that grew legs and got out of its cage.
jms
So two things here, Bryan...
First, there may be those that do not require IPv6 due to size. So what is YOUR big plan to connect all those on IPv4 to the rest of the IPv6 world that has dropped IPv4 addresses.
Second, as a DO customer, I am now beginning to understand the culture and ideology over IPv6 at DO. IPv6 has been asked about since at least 2012 with initial promises of 'Q3 2012 the 'Q4, now no one even wants to respond. With everyone else bringing native IPv6 on board, I see people starting to leave unless you change.
Additional support on my feeling of DO and IPv6, is DO's stance of directly not even allowing IPv6 tunnels to HE, SiXXs, or any of the other providers by specifically teliing them not to allow connections from your IPv4 address space.
Good luck on your IPv4 ride when none of your customers have anyone else to talk to.
Robert
Apologies to all other list members for the somewhat off topic rant.
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at some point in the not-too-distant future it will be the dominant network technology, and you don't want to get left behind.
Doug
not wanting to rain on anyone's parade, but people have been claiming this
since the days of IPng. Granted, we're a couple of years after IANA runout
and two RIRs are also in post-runout phase, but the level of pain
associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
Nick
Hi Justin,
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's far from useless.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Bill:
Interesting analogy, but it misses the larger point. The larger point is that the ongoing effort to squeeze more mileage out of IPv4 will soon [1] outweigh the mileage we (collectively) get out of it. IMHO, that effort is better invested in preparing for and deplying IPv6. Things like LSN/CGN are stop-gaps that result in performance problems for people behind them, and aren't terribly useful for people who need to run inbound services. Shaking down entities (to the extent that they can be shaken down) that have chunks of IPv4 they're not currently using doesn't change the end-game for IPv4.
I'm not saying that there aren't challenges to deploying IPv6. There are. Like many of the people on this list, I run a network, and I'm familiar with many of those challenges. If a network makes a conscious decision *not* to deploy IPv6, that is certainly their choice, and they will have to live with the consequences and will have to justify that decision to their customers.
[1] - For varying values of "soon".
jms
We've always told everyone the pain would be starting in the runout phase. Not immediately like a wall, but gradually.
Some people I know are already experiencing scarcity itches. One or two, some uncomfortable burning sensations. This will ramp up over time.
ISPs around you will get their last blocks from ARIN or other RIRs as the last RIRs exhaust soon; then the ISP blocks will be gone. Timescales for each of these phases will be months. There will be M&A or open market recovery of currently unused space for a while longer. With consumers seeing the inevitable slowly increasing markups in price for the new resources. Then the serious global pain starts...
It is true that a head in the sand was effective for 15 years. But you'd better pull it out now. Each of these phases is well understood *and we're here now*...
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
* Nick Hilliard
the level of pain
associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
demonstrably false: For the likes of T-Mobile USA� and Facebook�, or
even myself�, IPv6-only isn't just an �alternative�. It's �happening�.
[1]
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Goes-IPv6-Only-on-Android-44-Devices-126506
[2]
[3] IPv6-Only Data Centers - www.ipSpace.net
Tore
And to keep into perspective, the fact that a good portion
of the registry community have run out of IPv4 space to
allocate.
A number of existing and new ISP's are going to find that
getting IPv6 going is probably a better solution than
keeping IPv4 alive (many will learn this the hard way).
Heck, it won't surprise me if some popular OTT and social
networking providers "force" the IPv6 issue since democracy
isn't often the best way to get something like this done.
In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for
IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when
everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or
frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone will
have time to help you troubleshoot patchy (for example) IPv4
connectivity when all the focus is on IPv6?
AFRINIC still have lots of IPv4 space. I'm not sure that
gives operators in that region any advantage over anyone
else, if the rest of the world is active on IPv6, i.e.,
while it may be easier to justify a /8 of IPv4 and get it
from a registry that still has space, you're likely doing
yourself a disservice in taking this route (and spending all
the time and energy numbering out of that /8), because that
/8 won't be very helpful if the most of the rest of the
Internet is letting IPv4 go.
Mark.
Hi Justin,
That's what I hear. Interesting thing though: it hasn't happened yet.
IANA ran out of /8's and it didn't happen. The RIRs dropped to
high-conservation mode on their final allocations and it didn't
happen. How could that be?
In completely unrelated news, placard-bearing lunatics on the streets
of New York City report that The End Is Nigh... for most of the last
century.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
That's what I hear. Interesting thing though: it hasn't happened yet.
IANA ran out of /8's and it didn't happen. The RIRs dropped to
high-conservation mode on their final allocations and it didn't
happen. How could that be?
I never said that things would get bad the instant that IANA ran out of space or your friendly neighborhood RIR reached the trigger point for their IPv4 exhaustion plans. Different RIRs have different consumption rates.
There are also different pain points for different networks. A large .edu that has a big enough chunk of legacy IPv4 space to meet their needs for the next several years is in a different place than a large eyeball network that is deploying LSN/CGN to stretch what they have left because they can't go back to the well to get more. A large content/hosting provider who has customers that have different Internet reachability requirements where LSN/CGN doesn't help much has yet another different set of business drivers and pain points.
In completely unrelated news, placard-bearing lunatics on the streets
of New York City report that The End Is Nigh... for most of the last
century.
I put my sandwich board away a long time ago. I'm too busy working on deploying IPv6 
jms
In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for
IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when
everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or
frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone will
have time to help you troubleshoot patchy (for example) IPv4
connectivity when all the focus is on IPv6?
I've put that concern on my calendar for sometime around 2025.
People have been saying switch to IPv6 now Now NOW for about a decade,
and you can only cry wolf so many times. My servers do IPv6 through a
tunnel from HE (thanks!) where the performance is only somewhat worse
than the native v4, and my home cable has v6 that mostly works, but
the key term there is mostly. (The ISP had a fairly bad internal
routing bug which apparently nobody noticed until I tracked down why
my v6 connectivity was flaky, and I happened to know some senior
people at the ISP who could understand what I was telling them about
their internal routers.)
We've just barely started to move from the era of free IPv4 to the one
where you have to buy it, and from everyhing I see, there is vast
amounts of space that will be available once people realize they can
get real money for it. The prices cited a couple of messages back
seem to be in the ballpark. It will be a long time before the price
of v4 rises high enough to make it worth the risk of going v6 only.
R's,
John
* Nick Hilliard
the level of pain
associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
demonstrably false: For the likes of T-Mobile USA� and Facebook�, or
even myself�, IPv6-only isn't just an �alternative�. It's �happening�.
FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6->ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.
The advantage that using ipv6 gives in these deployment scenarios is that
it scales beyond the amount of address space available from rfc1918. As a
side effect, it also makes native end-to-end ipv6 connectivity pleasant.
Sadly, ipv4 address availability continues to be necessary at the same run
rate as before, except in situations where CGN is a possibility.
Nick
FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6->ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.
Using IPv6 internally is different from being able to use IPv6 end-to-end. 6<->4 translators will be needed to reach the IPv4-only chunks of the Internet. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Traffic that can go IPv6 end-to-end can do so.
The advantage that using ipv6 gives in these deployment scenarios is that
it scales beyond the amount of address space available from rfc1918. As a
side effect, it also makes native end-to-end ipv6 connectivity pleasant.Sadly, ipv4 address availability continues to be necessary at the same run
rate as before, except in situations where CGN is a possibility.
I think the expectation is that the utilization of those translators will plateau at some point, and then tail off as end-users go dual-stack or v6 only. Large/highly visible chunks of the Internet pushing IPv6 adoption helps get people toward the long-term goal of turning down those translators. Eventually those remaining pockets of IPv4ness will have to sit behind 4<->6 translators to be able to speak with the rest of the Internet.
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
jms
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less
ugly than CGN.
Nick