Have you considered national politics? The world needs you.
This. I'm in an enterprise with some stubborn vendors, and none of them are even talking about ipv6. It won't help me to move (and it won't help you to get well if you're here) if my users can't get to their stuff.
Berry
"I don't like what you eat. Lets put a TAX on it to make you feel pain and do what I want."
There. Fixed it for you.
Publicly shame them by listing the ones who don't fully support IPv6. List
them here, so we know to choose their competition.
It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to
use.
it is. but, judging by people's actions, in many cases it seems less
painful than going to ipv6. off-pissing, but reality.
randy
Thats right but as you mentioned that its commercially palatable, however I don’t know if the other vendors are the same performance as ASR1000! this was my question if someone recommend another vendor.
we are using ESP 20
You haven't said what you mean by "better". This could mean "faster" or
"copes with more sessions" or "cheaper". If your ISP is large, then it
might be "cost per user is lower" or "able to cope with the number of users".
Nick
At $dayjob$ (which is a university) we spoke to several vendors and eventually gave A10 Networks Thunder 3030 a test drive.
It satisfied our requirements and fit our budget. Most of our NAT traffic originates from our undergraduate student population. Peak workload during 2015 fall term was about 27k concurrently active devices, 4.6Gbps, 415kpps.
The ASR1000 would have been our other choice but the ASR's higher price pushed us toward A10.
Eriks
We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.
Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting!
load of crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling
point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware
of. Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6
deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types
in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs
allowing it to work in the real world.
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass not
the height of the fence.randy
Randy, I would happily appoint you as CIG-Q,
the Chief Inspector of Grass Quality. 
Matt
And that recent thread on prefix delegation doesn't really leave a good taste in one's mouth about how to delegate a /56 or a /48 to a CPE, and get that/those prefix(s) in your (ISP) routing tables. Given that 99.999% of home users would be fine with a delegation of a single /64 and a single subnet I'm tempted to do that for now and let the DHCP-PD ink dry for a while so CPE support can follow up.
Chuck
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Nat>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing feature
>parity between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to DHCP.And that recent thread on prefix delegation doesn't really leave a good
taste in one's mouth about how to delegate a /56 or a /48 to a CPE, and
get that/those prefix(s) in your (ISP) routing tables. Given that
99.999% of home users would be fine with a delegation of a single /64 and
a single subnet I'm tempted to do that for now and let the DHCP-PD ink
dry for a while so CPE support can follow up.
I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the
wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default
for homenet devices. A single /64 means you have to bridge all the
traffic.
A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that
myth into the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are
clueless.
Mark
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling
point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware
of. Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6
deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types
in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs
allowing it to work in the real world.
i disagree strongly on one point. ipv6 is about as far from pristine as
a protocol can get. an icon of second system syndrome. and it is
simpler than it used to be. remember TLAs, NLAs, ...
but the dhcp st00pidity does encapsulate the arrogance and stupidity
marvelously
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass not
the height of the fence.Randy, I would happily appoint you as CIG-Q,
the Chief Inspector of Grass Quality.
i gave all such things up over 21 years ago
randy
I mean by better, it handle more sessions and cheaper
Thanks, we are speaking with few vendors and A10 one of them. they offer the model Thunder 3030S, the price was good in comparison with the specifications of this model.
its good to know that it works good at your university.
On 12/17/15, 2:27 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Chuck Church"
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: NatI'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing feature parity
between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to DHCP.And that recent thread on prefix delegation doesn't really leave a good
taste in one's mouth about how to delegate a /56 or a /48 to a CPE, and
get that/those prefix(s) in your (ISP) routing tables. Given that
99.999% of home users would be fine with a delegation of a single /64 and
a single subnet I'm tempted to do that for now and let the DHCP-PD ink
dry for a while so CPE support can follow up.
Which thread on which list? DHCP-PD works to any home gateway that
supports IPv6. I know how the routing is set up in cable, don¹t know about
other access.
Or did you mean a prefix for a mobile device? Ongoing discussion in IETF
v6ops, with consensus that multiple addresses are needed.
There¹s disagreement among ISPs about what size prefix to delegate. So
what? Pick a number and do it. I don¹t know of anybody who thinks a /64 is
right for the home user, but I know of clueful people running every nibble
between /60 and /48. Pick a number, plan so you can change it later, and
deploy.
Lee
On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.
Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting!
load of crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling
point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware
of.
Tell me again why you want this, and not routing information from the
router?
Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6
deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types
in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs
allowing it to work in the real world.
There¹s a mix of people at IETF, but more operator input there would be
helpful. I have a particular draft in mind that is stuck between ³we¹d
rather delay IPv6 than do it wrong² and ³be realistic about how people
will deploy it."
Lee
On 12/16/15, 8:53 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Berry Mobley"
> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.This. I'm in an enterprise with some stubborn vendors, and none of
them are even talking about ipv6. It won't help me to move (and it
won't help you to get well if you're here) if my users can't get to
their stuff.
Can you dual-stack while you wait for them?
Can we help you push on those vendors?
Lee
On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
Mark,
Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
will get us all there eventually.
Some companies will run out of IPv4 addresses before others. When that
happens, they have four choices:
1. Buy IPv4 addresses. But supply is going; in a couple of years, there
will be nothing larger than a /16. And this raises costs, and therefore
consumer prices.
2. Address sharing. Breaks p2p, some other things.
3. Address family translation. Breaks several things.
4. IPv6-only. Means only IPv6-enabled content is available.
That¹s why some values of $we ³need² to force people to deploy IPv6: so
$we don¹t screw consumers and break the Internet.
But those with IPv4 addresses see exhaustion as someone else¹s problem.
They don¹t care if somebody else¹s prices go up, unless they¹re the ones
blamed for the rising prices. (³You have to pay more for Internet access
or you won¹t be able to reach Amazon or eBay.²)
They might not like the performance of address sharing/translation, but if
they wait until they notice the pain, and it takes them two years to
respond, they¹re already in serious trouble.
There is still time for companies without IPv6 to get it deployed before
going out of business. But anyone who isn¹t done two years from now is in
trouble.
Lee
Not all problems are well solved by markets, contrary to popular dogma.
In this case, those with the least ability to affect the outcome overall are the ones with
the greatest need for IPv6. Large incumbent organizations that have lots of IPv4 addresses
already have very little tangible market incentive to move, yet until they move, it’s very difficult
for smaller players to operate without IPv4 even though it’s now very hard for them to get
IPv4 addresses.
As such, it’s incumbent on each and every one of us to try and resolve this globally so as
to reduce the lasting impacts of our dependence on IPv4 globally.
Owen