My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it. I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four number dotted quad was easy to remember, an IPv6 address.. not so much. I wished they had made that a little easier when they were drafting up the protocol specs. basically, you need technical knowledge to even understand how the IP address is split up. I wished ARIN would waive the fee for service provider's first block of IPv6 as well. It would help make the dual stack deployment easier.
I know IPv4 is running out. I understand the situation. I just wished they had put a little more thought into the user experience side of the addressing. You can all flog me now if you want. I expect it. I'm green on IPv6. I would love the education if I am wrong. -S Mark Newton wrote: > On 06/03/2010, at 1:06 AM, David Conrad wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote: >>> On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll >>>> quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space will quickly >>>> become worth the effort. >>> Only to the extent that the cost of IPv6 migration exceeds the cost >>> of recovering space. >> You're remembering to include the cost of migrating both sides, for all >> combinations of sides interested in communicating, right? In some cases, >> that cost for one of those sides will be quite high. > > Yes, but I only need to pay the cost of my side. > >>> There's sure to be an upper-bound on the cost of v4 space, limited by the >>> magnitude of effort required to do whatever you want to do without v4. >> The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want without >> IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free pool is >> exhausted, and as such, allocated-but-not-efficiently-used addresses will >> likely become worth the effort to reclaim. > > That isn't a likely outcome, though. We'll never need to do "without IPv4", > it'll always be available, just in a SP-NATted form which doesn't work very > well. > > Continuing to put up with that state of affairs comes with its own set of > costs and obstacles which need to be weighed up against the cost of > migrating to dual-stack (unicast global IPv6 + SPNAT IPv4) to extract yourself > from the IPv4 tar-baby. Not migrating will be increasingly expensive > over time, the costs of migrating will diminish, each individual operator > will reach their own point when staying where they are is more expensive > than getting with the program. > > And most of the participants on this mailing list will probably reach > that point sooner than they think. > > My mom will probably never see a need to move beyond IPv4. But her next > door neighbor with the bittorrent client and WoW habit probably will, and > any content provider who's interested in having a relationship with their > eyeballs which isn't intermediated by bollocky SPNAT boxes probably will too. > > Horses for courses. > > What I do know is that this "migrating to IPv6 is expensive so nobody wants > to do it," is a canard that's been trotted out for most of the last decade > as a justification for doing nothing. > > As an ISP that's running dual-stack right now, I can tell you from personal > experience that the cost impact is grossly overstated, and under the > circumstances is probably better off ignored. > > Just sayin'. > > - mark > > -- > Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) > Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) > Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 > "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223 > > > > > > >
