How would you respond if that were announced? Carriers have been doing technology transitions for years. Cidr to classless. Amps to CDMA or gsm... This is not new.
I do agree the incentives and technology don't exist in a desirable environment but the "ip" feature creep we've seen make a solution for everyone difficult without breaking something. If I were king for a day, there are many things along these lines that I would consider. Sent from my iThing On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Ben Butler <ben.but...@c2internet.net> wrote: > Hi, > > What is the consequence of not managing to transition the v4 network and > having to maintain it indefinitely. I think if the cost / limitations that > this may place on things is great enough then the "how" will reveal itself > with the interested parties. > > Is there a downside to being stuck with both address spaces rather than just > 6, idk, you tell me, but there seems to be from what I can tell. > > I am not suggesting any form of timeframe in the exact number of years / > decades, just that a timeframe should exist where after a certain date - > whatever that is - we can say ok, now we are turning off v4. > > In the absence of any form of timeframe what is the operational benefit of > any existing v4 user migrating to v6 if the service provider is going to make > magic happen that enables them to talk to v6 only host via some mysterious > bridging box. I can see none, which tells me they are not going to bother > spending there time and money renumbering and deploying v6 - ever! There > needs to be a technical, commercial or operational reason for them to want to > go through the change. > > Ben > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:t...@americafree.tv] > Sent: 21 October 2010 18:09 > To: Ben Butler > Cc: 'Dan White'; NANOG > Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Ben Butler wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I can live with running dual stack for a number of years as long as IPv4 has >> a turn off date, much like analogue TV services, thus putting onus of > > And how would you propose to achieve that ? > > Regards > Marshall > > >> responsibility onto the customer to also have a vested interest in migrating >> from v4 to v6. If there is no end data - then all the service providers are >> going to get stuck running dual stack and providing 4to6 and 6to4 gateways >> to bridge traffic to the pool of established v4 only customers. Presumably >> the evil that is NAT will have to be run on these gateways meaning we have >> to endure yet more decades of many applications being undeployable for >> practical purposes as stun cant fix everything in the mish mash of different >> NAT implementations. >> >> The problem is there is no commercial incentive for the v4 customer to want >> to move to v6 and there is no way for the ISP to force them to without >> loosing the customer. However, if the RIRs or IANA turned around and said >> as of xxxx date we are revoking all ipv4 allocations. Then we might be able >> to transition to a v6 only network in some decent timeframe without ending >> up going down the road of a broken dual level 4/6 half way in between broken >> internet for the next 25 years. >> >> You either cross the bridge and get to the other side, or you tell all the >> people waiting to cross they are too late and tough luck but we have run out >> and you cant join the party, but the last thing we want to do is get half >> way across the bridge and need to straddle both sides of the river. >> >> My 2c. >> >> Ben >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net] >> Sent: 21 October 2010 16:30 >> To: Ben Butler >> Cc: 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; Owen DeLong; NANOG >> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA >> >> On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered, >>> given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet, >>> presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able >>> in v4 land, then v4 and v6, then finally v6 only. >>> >>> I have never been particularly clear how an end network that exists only >>> in v4 or v6 address space is able to access a resource that only exists in >>> the other. Is can sort of see some freaking huge NAT box type thing that >>> summarizes v6 in a v4 address scope or contains the v4 address range at >>> some point inside the v6 address space - but how can a v4 host get to a >>> hot in v6 world that sits outside this without going through some form of >>> proxy / nat gateway between the two. >>> >>> Or are the two simply not inter-communicable? >> >> I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you >> start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up? From an accounting and cost >> recovery stand point, that probably makes sense in some environments. >> >> However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up >> after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the public >> internet space that cannot obtain v4 addresses and will be reachable via v6 >> only. That date is starting to become a bit more predictable too. Those v6 >> only sites won't be Google or Yahoo, but they will be entrepreneurs with >> good ideas and new services that your customers will be asking to get >> access to. >> >> We're pursuing a dual stacking model today because we anticipate that >> the dual-stacking process itself will take a while to deploy, and we want >> to anticipate customer demand for access to v6 only sites. We could hold >> off on that deployment, and then spend money on work at the moment of >> truth, but that approach is not very appealing to us. >> >> -- >> Dan White >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, >> Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; >> TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, >> Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; >> TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, >> Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; >> TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, >> Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: >> none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, >> sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; >> TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, >> Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; >> TEXT-DECORATION: none} >> Ben Butler >> Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 >> Fax: 0333 666 3331 >> C2 Business Networking Ltd >> The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL >> http://www.c2internet.net/ >> >> Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc >> Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra >> Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 >> This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to >> whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly >> prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting >> or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and >> other information expressed in this message are not given or authorised by >> the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative >> independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for any >> data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequences >> thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by that >> person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atlas >> Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training, >> monitoring of quality and customer services. >> >> >> >> >> > >
