Mike, They certainly won't like it. But the situation is the same everywhere. It's not like they're being gouged.
-mel via cell > On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > You don't work with end-users much, do you? The same types that follow Free > Press and what not about how their ISP breaks it off in their backside > (despite no concrete evidence - see the recent M-Labs, Free Press > incident)... they won't take too kindly to being told to pay more for IPv4 to > make whatever game work properly. It has to be seamless and it has to be > free. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mel Beckman" <m...@beckman.org> > To: "Josh Moore" <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 10:52:36 AM > Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion > > Dual-stack doesn't require public IPv4 addresses. Since IPv4 is in short > supply, providers must still do what they can to conserve them. This means > NAT, with appropriate management to not overload any one IP, or CGN if you > want to keep public IPv4 (but no longer unique ones) on CPE. Not every > customer needs direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT; those that do must pay > for it. If those who have it aren't willing to pay, they must give up their > public IPv4 address. > > That is the most efficient direct IPv4 provisioning concept we have today. > Given the history of IPv6 adoption, it's clear that people won't move until > they experience pain sticking with IPv4. > > "On demand" IPv4 isn't currently being done anywhere AFAIK, and since we're > abandoning IPv4 it's not likely anyone has that on their priority list. It's > not a good policy to go out of your way to make IPv4 users comfortable. IPv4 > is going to go away, and the sooner customers get that and go to IPv6, the > sooner the pain will stop :) > > -mel beckman > >> On Jul 4, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net> wrote: >> >> Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE. >> Consider the following: >> >> An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with >> the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardless >> of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best practices seem >> to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If this is the case, >> and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with the v4 address >> depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4 >> compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about >> applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems that >> there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 address >> consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, solutions >> like this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? >> What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be? >> >> Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and >> while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; I >> don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate >> issue: IPv4 depletion. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Joshua Moore >> Network Engineer >> ATC Broadband >> 912.632.3161 >
