On Sep 23, 2021, at 18:48 , Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
On Sep 23, 2021, at 6:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 2021, at 12:50 , Brian Johnson <brian.johnson@netgeek.us> wrote:
Side question on this thread…
Is it everyones current expectation that if a provider were to switch to IPv6 and drop IPv4 that the customers would all be just fine with that? I believe that there are several applications used by some of the the loudest customers (typically gamers and network gurus), not to mention some business applications that would break or be sub-optimal at best. I see CGN as the band aid to this issue, not the cure to the problem.
Today? no.
At some point when a relatively small number of remaining laggards among major content providers move forward? Yes.
So do we just bleed out in the mean time?
Well, you can turn off IPv4 on your network whenever you choose to do so. Unfortunately, I suspect you’re in the same boat I am there, yes, continuing to bleed until the laggards on the content side get their acts together.
Do you really think that those applications/vendors wouldn’t move quickly if a couple of major eyeball providers announced “Effective X date”, we’re going to start offering a $X/month discount to any customer(s) who are willing to stop using IPv4.
I’d be happy to suggest this to my clients, but it’s not a real thing yet. Plus, the average human (even the average CSR at a small regional provider network) has no idea what this means.
Yeah, it doesn’t mean anything there. For it to mean something, it would have to be somebody like Comcast, Cox, etc. and they’d have to put it like 2 years out, but make a big point of it with the content providers. Another thing they could do if so inclined (the really big eyeball providers) is they could start doing settlement free IPv6-only PNIs for content providers.
You an only cover an arterial bleed with a band-aid for so long before it becomes silly, septic even. If you’re wondering how quick that point is coming up, I suggest you check your mirrors.
Triage suggests that you assist in succession of the current bleeding before being concerned about the next time you are cut. I have BGN deployments that have been in place for 4+ years with little customer knowledge. It has allowed clients to avoid the IPv4 market issues, and in some instances, become a source for others to help compensate for the initial CGN expense.
I hear you. I’m not sure there’s a viable alternative, but in my experience, CGN pisses off online gamers something fierce and if you’re an eyeball ISP, I don’t envy you the phone calls that’s going to create, especially as games get more and more network-oriented. Sony already categorizes NAT into various categories and basically when it detects CGN it can’t easily penetrate or circumvent, it tells you to call your ISP and complain.
I totally agree with you in spirit, but I am working on the problem of now, not the problem of some point in the future. The cost of CGN is becoming less expensive than IPv4 space acquisition. I wish this weren’t true.
Yeah, but it’s far from zero and that’s more because IPv4 is getting more expensive than because CGN is getting cheaper. There’s only so far you can go with CGN before the user experience turns universally bad. It turns bad for a lot of customers well before that point. I don’t envy you. Owen
Owen
Discuss…?
- Brian
On Sep 23, 2021, at 10:46 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
There are real issues with dual-stack, as this thread started out with. I don't think there is a need neither to invent IPv6 problems, nor to promote IPv6 advantages. What we need is a way out of dual-stack-hell.
I don’t disagree, but a reversion to IPv4-only certainly won’t do it.
I think the only way out is through. Unfortunately, the IPv6 resistant forces are making that hard for everyone else.
Owen