On Jan 21, 2021, at 14:22 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I’m sure we all remember Y2k (well, most of us, there could be some young-uns on the list). That day was happening whether we wanted it to or not. It was an unchangeable, unmovable deadline.
but i thought 3gpp was gong to force ipv6 adoption
let me try it a different way
why should i care whether you deploy ipv6, move to dual stack, cgnat, ...? you will do whatever makes sense to the pointy heads in your c suite. why should i give them or some tech religion free rent in my mind when i already have too much real work to do?
Presumably because you have reason to connect to the internet. Presumably you intend that connection to the internet to be able to reach a variety of third parties. As such, there is some reasonable basis for the idea that how third parties choose to manage their network impacts decisions you need to make about your own network. E.G. Facebook has decided to go almost entirely IPv6, yet they maintain an IPv4 presence on their front-end in order to support users that are victims of IPv4-only networks and devices. Facebook faces a cost in having to maintain those services to reach those customers. That cost could be reduced by the providers in question (and in some cases the device manufacturers) providing robust IPv6 implementations in their products and services. Unfortunately, NAT, CGNAT, and IPv4 in general are an unrecognized cost inflicted on people who are not involved in the decision to implement those processes vs. deploying IPv6, thus creating. a situation where those who have deployed IPv6 yet wish to maintain connectivity to those who have not are essentially subsidizing those who have not in order to maintain that connectivity. Now, if the true cost of that were more transparent and the organizations not deploying IPv6 could be made more aware of the risks of what happens when a variety of organizations choose to put an end to that subsidy, it might get more attention at the CxO level. Unfortunately, the perverse incentives of the market (providers that are willing to offer legacy services are more likely to retain customers than providers that aren’t) prevent those paying the subsidy from opting out (at least for now) because the critical mass of customers still clinging to their legacy networks presumably comes with a value that exceeds the cost of that subsidy. There was actually some excellent work done to try and quantify this in terms of Per User Per Year costs to an average ISP by Lee Howard: https://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/TCO-of-CGN1.pdf Owen