I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like… This is just a data point.
On 12/9/2011 10:37 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
I hear those are $12/each. How much do they have in the budget for this? Matthew Kaufman
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
Interesting data point. Would be more interesting to find out "the way they would like". For instance, is it a "bullet-proof" hoster who promises each spammer 1K IP addresses across dozens of discontiguous /24s? Or is it a DSL provider with 10K subs, and APNIC would only give them a /22 until next year? -- TTFN, patrick
Option 2) and think country wide ISP growing very fast. On 12/9/11 10:39 , "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would likeŠ
This is just a data point.
Interesting data point.
Would be more interesting to find out "the way they would like". For instance, is it a "bullet-proof" hoster who promises each spammer 1K IP addresses across dozens of discontiguous /24s?
Or is it a DSL provider with 10K subs, and APNIC would only give them a /22 until next year?
-- TTFN, patrick
On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
We're going to be hearing a lot more of these. It's the nature of finite resources, and of human nature when faced with them. At some point, this will find its way into courtrooms under the rubric of a barrier to entry. It already has in terms of antitrust when a company wanted to move its PA prefix to different upstream.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
We're going to be hearing a lot more of these. It's the nature of finite resources, and of human nature when faced with them. At some point, this will find its way into courtrooms under the rubric of a barrier to entry. It already has in terms of antitrust when a company wanted to move its PA prefix to different upstream.
+1 to Fred's comments. Hopefully, the existence of an open IPv4 address market will help avoid some of the worst. (At least for a while, until the rising prices get too high for a competitive environment. And maybe by then the price of IPv4 addresses will have made IPv6 deployment a much more obvious choice to reluctant CFO-types.) Cheers, -Benson --- Disclaimers: 1. I am not a lawyer, and nothing in this message should be construed as advice. 2. I, Benson Schliesser, am an employee of Cisco Systems; however, opinions expressed in this email are my own views and not those of Cisco Systems or anybody else.
On 9 Dec 2011, at 20:47, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
We're going to be hearing a lot more of these. It's the nature of finite resources, and of human nature when faced with them. At some point, this will find its way into courtrooms under the rubric of a barrier to entry. It already has in terms of antitrust when a company wanted to move its PA prefix to different upstream.
I've had transit service pulled, so the provider can reclaim the /21 that was bundled with the transit. - Mark
On Dec 9, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Mark Blackman wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
We're going to be hearing a lot more of these. It's the nature of finite resources, and of human nature when faced with them. At some point, this will find its way into courtrooms under the rubric of a barrier to entry. It already has in terms of antitrust when a company wanted to move its PA prefix to different upstream.
I've had transit service pulled, so the provider can reclaim the /21 that was bundled with the transit.
I'm sorry to hear about that... Do you know why they reclaimed the block? E.g. was it used to support a "higher margin" service for another customer? -Benson
On 9 Dec 2011, at 21:05, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Mark Blackman wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
We're going to be hearing a lot more of these. It's the nature of finite resources, and of human nature when faced with them. At some point, this will find its way into courtrooms under the rubric of a barrier to entry. It already has in terms of antitrust when a company wanted to move its PA prefix to different upstream.
I've had transit service pulled, so the provider can reclaim the /21 that was bundled with the transit.
I'm sorry to hear about that... Do you know why they reclaimed the block? E.g. was it used to support a "higher margin" service for another customer?
-Benson
Leased line customers.
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:47:06 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
+1 to Fred's comments. Hopefully, the existence of an open IPv4 address market will help avoid some of the worst. (At least for a while, until the rising prices get too high for a competitive environment. And maybe by then the price of IPv4 addresses will have made IPv6 deployment a much more obvious choice to reluctant CFO-types.)
I suspect the opposite is in fact true - if there is an open market, many sites will continue deluding themselves and make the end game that much more painful. If you haven't been able to sell the CFO types on the need to deploy IPv6 *yet* (consider that you *should* have been specifying "Ipv6-ready" on capex for at least 4-5 years already, so most of the gear on the floor should be ready to go), you're going to be *screwed* when you finally get moving. Among other things, all the *good* IPv6 experts will already have found good gigs, and it's gonna either take a bigger paycheck to headhunt one, or you'll be stuck with the dregs of the market (either way, it will cost you more).
On Dec 9, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
I suspect the opposite is in fact true - if there is an open market, many sites will continue deluding themselves and make the end game that much more painful. If you haven't been able to sell the CFO types on the need to deploy IPv6 *yet* (consider that you *should* have been specifying "Ipv6-ready" on capex for at least 4-5 years already, so most of the gear on the floor should be ready to go), you're going to be *screwed* when you finally get moving. Among other things, all the *good* IPv6 experts will already have found good gigs, and it's gonna either take a bigger paycheck to headhunt one, or you'll be stuck with the dregs of the market (either way, it will cost you more).
I've had recruiters calling me about IPv6 related jobs for at least 2 years now. Some are full-time, others contract work. If you haven't IPv6 enabled your capable devices yet, get on it. Most providers will give you IPv6 for free now, and will allocate you space from their blocks. If you are an ARIN member, you can get your block of IPv6 address by submitting a simple form as long as you already have IPv4 space. Get on it, make them work this month and have your space already allocated prior to the start of 2012. - jared
On 12/09/2011 13:16, Jared Mauch wrote:
I've had recruiters calling me about IPv6 related jobs for at least 2 years now.
Some are full-time, others contract work.
+1, mostly contract stuff that I've had to turn down because my travel capacity is limited nowadays. From the standpoint of IPv6, it's already "next quarter." Doug -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
If you are an ARIN member, you can get your block of IPv6 address by submitting a simple form as long as you already have IPv4 space.
Not exactly... 1. You don't have to be an ARIN member. 2. Even if you don't have IPv4 space, you can still use a simple form. You just need to put a little more information on that form. Owen
If you haven't IPv6 enabled your capable devices yet, get on it. Most providers will give you IPv6 for free now, and will allocate you space from their blocks.
If you are an ARIN member, you can get your block of IPv6 address by submitting a simple form as long as you already have IPv4 space.
Get on it, make them work this month and have your space already allocated prior to the start of 2012.
I can tell you that (as of Dec 2011) *lots and lots* of networks (big ones, even some of the biggest) are in no real position to support nearly universal customer IPv6 service yet. There are networks that have IPv6 "somewhere".. but even where we've been requesting IPv6 turned up alongside existing IPv4 sessions sometimes the turnaround is months and months with lots of repeated banging -- even where the gear and the uplinks support it. Some of this is that (esp internal) tools still aren't where they need to be. Some of this is that once we IPv6 becomes the "standard"... well, security and other concerns will challenge all the infrastructure in place. And this is all before you get into issues of inconsistent views of the IPv6 RIB, and the rest. Just my opinion, hopefully someone else has a better experience. DJ
On Dec 9, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
I can tell you that (as of Dec 2011) *lots and lots* of networks (big ones, even some of the biggest) are in no real position to support nearly universal customer IPv6 service yet. There are networks that have IPv6 "somewhere".. but even where we've been requesting IPv6 turned up alongside existing IPv4 sessions sometimes the turnaround is months and months with lots of repeated banging -- even where the gear and the uplinks support it.
I think you are working with the wrong carriers in that case perhaps? As part of a turn-up this year, IPv6 was a standard question, including the IP/BGP request form that had separate tabs for IPv6 and address space requests along-side the IPv4 BGP/space request. The cases were with Cogent and Abovenet for connections in the US. I know that NTT can also do IPv6 as well. I think that some of what you may be terming the big-guys such as at&t and verizon/uunet are still behind the curve but they are largely in the managed services and not internet space from what I can tell. Internet is a side thing they sell and not a primary line of business.
Some of this is that (esp internal) tools still aren't where they need to be. Some of this is that once we IPv6 becomes the "standard"... well, security and other concerns will challenge all the infrastructure in place.
I do agree that most tools seem to be IPv4 centric these days at least for management of the device (Eg: no SNMP over IPv6 only). You can do much of the monitoring over IPv6.
And this is all before you get into issues of inconsistent views of the IPv6 RIB, and the rest.
While this still exists, this is something that will resolve itself with increased adoption.
Just my opinion, hopefully someone else has a better experience.
My experience as well. - Jared
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
and we are supposed to be surprised or feel sorry? you're kidding, right? they're lucky to be in a/p. at least they can get a /22. i especially like the "the way they would like" part. the way i would like to run my business is to go into the office every friday and scoop up the cash that fell from the sky all week. reality is such a pain in the ass. randy
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
and we are supposed to be surprised or feel sorry? you're kidding, right? they're lucky to be in a/p. at least they can get a /22.
i especially like the "the way they would like" part. the way i would like to run my business is to go into the office every friday and scoop up the cash that fell from the sky all week.
reality is such a pain in the ass.
randy
+1 aren't we way past all of the predicted exhaustion dates. There are slot of as's that have ignored this.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 03:15:01AM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would likeb&
and we are supposed to be surprised or feel sorry? you're kidding, right? they're lucky to be in a/p. at least they can get a /22.
i especially like the "the way they would like" part. the way i would like to run my business is to go into the office every friday and scoop up the cash that fell from the sky all week.
reality is such a pain in the ass.
randy
+1 aren't we way past all of the predicted exhaustion dates. There are slot of as's that have ignored this.
predictions are ... predictions! guesses. swag. nothing more/less. i will say this however. after fifteen years, I am exhausted listening to ipv6 v. ipv4 bickering. (and after five years of running native ipv6-only networks - i've re-introduced ipv4 to the mix... go figure) /bill
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like?
This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:48:45 EST, Barry Shein said:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like?
This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc.
No Barry, I respectfully disagree. It's almost 2012. The first predictions of IPv4 exhaustion were made *last century*. We've been predicting it to the month level for like 5 years now. Any business that is making business plans and models that doesn't take "we may not get IPv4 space" into account and have a contingency plan for that *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
No Barry, I respectfully disagree. It's almost 2012. The first predictions of IPv4 exhaustion were made *last century*. We've been predicting it to the month level for like 5 years now. Any business that is making business plans and models that doesn't take "we may not get IPv4 space" into account and have a contingency plan for that *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
mocking someone who shows up when the party is already over is not overly kind or useful. making clear to the world that the part is over is more useful. i could not decide between a number of very appropriate floyd songs, but i think 'time' says it well Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town Waiting for someone or something to show you the way Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain And you are young and life is long and there is time to kill today And then one day you find ten years have got behind you No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking Racing around to come up behind you again The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older Shorter of breath and one day closer to death Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines Hanging on quiet desperation is the English way The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say randy
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
No Barry, I respectfully disagree. It's almost 2012. The first predictions of IPv4 exhaustion were made *last century*. We've been predicting it to the month level for like 5 years now. Any business that is making business plans and models that doesn't take "we may not get IPv4 space" into account and have a contingency plan for that *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
mocking someone who shows up when the party is already over is not overly kind or useful. making clear to the world that the part is over is more useful.
The party is not over, it is just moving from a house to a stadium, with a large drive between.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Philip Dorr <tagno25@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
mocking someone who shows up when the party is already over is not overly kind or useful. making clear to the world that the part is over
The party is not over, it is just moving from a house to a stadium, with a large drive between.
That's a different party. It doesn't really get started until people arrive at it. So far the IPv6 party's been pretty small due to the expense of the rocket ship upgrades required to reach the planet that party is going to be held on. -- -JH
So far the IPv6 party's been pretty small due to the expense of the rocket ship upgrades required to reach the planet that party is going to be held on.
for those of us who have been here on B-612 nuturing the rose for over a decade, you 'adult' geographers seem to live on a very grey and depressing asteroid. randy
On 11/12/2011, at 2:37 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:48:45 EST, Barry Shein said:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like?
This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc.
No Barry, I respectfully disagree. It's almost 2012. The first predictions of IPv4 exhaustion were made *last century*. We've been predicting it to the month level for like 5 years now. Any business that is making business plans and models that doesn't take "we may not get IPv4 space" into account and have a contingency plan for that *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
You could take this one step further and say any industry that has had this much warning and hasn’t taken it into account *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
and models that doesn't take "we may not get IPv4 space" into account and have a contingency plan for that *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
That's right However the original post was concerning a fresh new ISP that can't run their business the way they would like Maybe they'd like to build an mpls core which right now is not possible with only ipv6 at hand I'd like to see the business model to build an mpls network with all the features we're used to -but solely on ipv6 -I guess the plan would be let's wait a couple years till it gets implemented and mature enough
-----Original Message----- From: Vitkovsky, Adam [mailto:avitkovsky@emea.att.com] Sent: 12 December 2011 09:19 To: Eric Parsonage; Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Sad IPv4 story?
and models that doesn't take "we may not get IPv4 space" into account and have a contingency plan for that *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
That's right
However the original post was concerning a fresh new ISP that can't run their business the way they would like Maybe they'd like to build an mpls core which right now is not possible with only ipv6 at hand I'd like to see the business model to build an mpls network with all the features we're used to -but solely on ipv6 -I guess the plan would be let's wait a couple years till it gets implemented and mature enough
Well really this is pretty much our fault. IPv6 has been on peoples 'back burner' for far too long. Additional vendor pressure and pressure at the IETF would have pushed things forward far faster had people actually been interested in doing so. As per an earlier post, I am shocked at how I still have vendors coming to me with equipment that is nowhere near ready for commercial IPv6 deployment, it either just does not work, is half baked or is "on the roadmap". So now we will reap the consequences and it will be at the cost of new market entrants (which I am sure will please some people) and perhaps cold hard cash for those who cannot expand their business or have to 'buy' address space. I know a lot of people have been working hard to move IPv6 along both here, at NANOG and other events and with their vendors. It's because of those people, like Randy perhaps that we actually have what we do now else most people would still be stuck with their heads in the sand. Well, I am sure it'll all be OK in the end... -- Leigh ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
On 12/12/11 02:05 , Leigh Porter wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Vitkovsky, Adam [mailto:avitkovsky@emea.att.com] Sent: 12 December 2011 09:19 To: Eric Parsonage; Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Sad IPv4 story?
and models that doesn't take "we may not get IPv4 space" into account and have a contingency plan for that *deserves* to be soundly mocked and ridiculed in public.
That's right
However the original post was concerning a fresh new ISP that can't run their business the way they would like Maybe they'd like to build an mpls core which right now is not possible with only ipv6 at hand I'd like to see the business model to build an mpls network with all the features we're used to -but solely on ipv6 -I guess the plan would be let's wait a couple years till it gets implemented and mature enough
Well really this is pretty much our fault. IPv6 has been on peoples 'back burner' for far too long. Additional vendor pressure and pressure at the IETF would have pushed things forward far faster had people actually been interested in doing so.
As per an earlier post, I am shocked at how I still have vendors coming to me with equipment that is nowhere near ready for commercial IPv6 deployment, it either just does not work, is half baked or is "on the roadmap".
So now we will reap the consequences and it will be at the cost of new market entrants (which I am sure will please some people) and perhaps cold hard cash for those who cannot expand their business or have to 'buy' address space.
New market entrants are the customers of existing operators, so their plight and the feasibility of being a new market entrant impacts our bottom lines.
I know a lot of people have been working hard to move IPv6 along both here, at NANOG and other events and with their vendors. It's because of those people, like Randy perhaps that we actually have what we do now else most people would still be stuck with their heads in the sand.
Well, I am sure it'll all be OK in the end...
-- Leigh
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
In article <4EE6E7D2.8060306@bogus.com>, Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> writes
So now we will reap the consequences and it will be at the cost of new market entrants (which I am sure will please some people) and perhaps cold hard cash for those who cannot expand their business or have to 'buy' address space.
New market entrants are the customers of existing operators, so their plight and the feasibility of being a new market entrant impacts our bottom lines.
On the three occasions where I've been involved in running a new market entrant they were not previously a customer of an existing operator (other than the founders having an earlier personal online account with someone or other). So it's not always a case of an entrant getting started using someone else's IP transit (and IP addressing), then bringing that in-house. -- Roland Perry
On Monday, December 12, 2011 05:17:08 PM Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
However the original post was concerning a fresh new ISP that can't run their business the way they would like Maybe they'd like to build an mpls core which right now is not possible with only ipv6 at hand I'd like to see the business model to build an mpls network with all the features we're used to -but solely on ipv6 -I guess the plan would be let's wait a couple years till it gets implemented and mature enough
I've been pushing Cisco and Juniper since 2007 for LDPv6 and RSVPv6 since 2007. I kept getting non-commital "end of this year, end of this year". After catching up with Cisco during an update of the ASR9000 a couple of weeks back, I'm meant to understand support will be coming around Q1'13 on this platform (which, by association, might mean other IOS XR platforms like the CRS). It's not clear about other Cisco systems, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if they maintain the time lines. All this despite the fact that drafts have been out for years. Mark.
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like?
This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc.
i am sure they look forward to your generous offer. randy
On 12/10/11 17:48 , Barry Shein wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like?
This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc.
engineering solutions work with the constraints at hand. The maximum ipv4 delegation size to be issued in apnic is a /22. one has to assume that when it's gone it's gone. given that constraint, I know how I'd build it.
On 12/10/11 21:42 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 12/10/11 17:48 , Barry Shein wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like?
This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc.
engineering solutions work with the constraints at hand.
The maximum ipv4 delegation size to be issued in apnic is a /22. one has to assume that when it's gone it's gone.
given that constraint, I know how I'd build it.
Setting aside the sad story part for the moment, Would this be a good subject for a BOF? Are there others who would be willing to participate (residendential,transit or dc operators, and potentially vendors of equipment or address transfer brokers). I'd call it something like: IPV4 runout - Doing more with less. * IPV4 runout means new entrants will from the outset deploy techniques the present operators consider undesirable. * IPV6 should be appearing as part and parcel of new greenfield projects I would think. * On the vendor side CGN hardware is becoming a mature product space. * Datacenter/ICP operators confront a similar set of problems both supporting outgoing connections for large pools and incoming termination.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
Franck - Thanks for the data point - I'm certain there are others folks out there with similar experiences that we're not hearing about. Of course, the theory was that at this point they'd be able to use IPv6 to connect customers up to the Internet. Such theory was predicated on a presumed strong motivation for everyone already connected via IPv4 to deploy IPv6 in parallel (i.e. dual-stack) and some elusive TBD transition mechanisms which were to make IPv6 customers interoperate with those that hadn't yet deployed IPv6 in parallel. Reality looks very different, in that existing organizations find it difficult to understand why to add IPv6 connectivity to their existing public-facing servers, and the state of the art in achieving transparent operation for IPv6 connected systems to the rest of the Internet running only IPv4 is still effectively a work-in-progress... While your data point may be from the Asia-Pacific region, that same story is going to repeated in every region (RIPE NCC will be running out shortly, and ARIN has 1 to 2 years depending on the actual request rate that materializes) Service providers in the ARIN region need to carefully consider their answer to that same situation, because it will be occurring here soon enough. There is one thing that everyone can do to reduce the impact of this transition, and this is getting in front of their business customers (and small business/power users who have public-facing content) to explain that the Internet is going be running IPv4 and IPv6 for quite some time in parallel and that getting their public-facing servers connected up also via IPv6 is a very good idea (if anyone wants help doing this sort of customer education ARIN's https://www.arin.net/knowledge, NRO's http://www.nro.net/ipv6, and APNIC's IPv6 Act Now http://www.ipv6actnow.org web sites are all good sources on materials for this sort of effort.) The sooner we get the content on IPv6 in addition to IPv4, the sooner that connecting new customers up via IPv6 without additional unique IPv4 address space becomes viable (and obviously if we had the vast majority of content already on IPv6, then connecting new customers via IPv6 would be simple indeed.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:52 AM, John Curran wrote:
The sooner we get the content on IPv6 in addition to IPv4, the sooner that connecting new customers up via IPv6 without additional unique IPv4 address space becomes viable (and obviously if we had the vast majority of content already on IPv6, then connecting new customers via IPv6 would be simple indeed.)
Google and other content providers will whitelist you if you coordinate with them. Some may not like the social-political implications of this as it will create what some see as IPv6 islands that are overlays on the global IPv6 network. This is nothing new, there have always been private and policy based decisions that lead to reachability. We have seen great success (IMHO) in IPv6 day. We need to see this happen again with a broader number of networks having IPv6 connectivity. I look forward to seeing the continued broadband deployment of IPv6 to make the data far more interesting. I'm glad to see the major carriers doing IPv6 work in this space. It appears that the traditional/incumbent telcos in the US are behind the curve, but I'm not entirely convinced their business model is relevant in the future decades. - Jared
I really didn't follow to much of this thread, it's all a bit weird with some obvious industry under currents running that I don't follow. What I will say is that I'm currently involved with exactly this issue and would have to say that it's all just getting sillier by the day. I've been researching solutions with NAT and double NAT in mind because it's obvious that v4 space is going to become a growing problem. It's interesting to see the things that break when you use double NAT. What's also interesting is the growing competitive market place with incumbent providers, who have enough v4 space for their entire market, contracting their retail operations while their retail competitors are growing in size. I've been working on some very basic projections for my country and expect over the next decade we will see at least 30%, or more, movement in our market. So where is this going to leave v4 allocations? Will the incumbents protect their retail operations by locking up their v4 space so that smaller competitors can't grow? Will we all move to v6 to make the problem go away? (Not likely, the level of edge understanding of v6 isn't there, and you lot already had a rant about CPE this week, so I won't go there!) Will we develop smarter v4 technology and just NAT on NAT... and on NAT? The only thing that is really clear is the lack of clarity. D On 10/12/2011 7:37 a.m., Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
-- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 02:36:49 PM Don Gould wrote:
I've been researching solutions with NAT and double NAT in mind because it's obvious that v4 space is going to become a growing problem.
We've started playing with Stateful NAT64 on a couple of Cisco ASR1006's. In general, it works okay, save for issues with applications that have no IPv6 support, e.g., Skype, e.t.c. We hope to find more issues as more customers sign up to be guinea pigs.
The only thing that is really clear is the lack of clarity.
Indeed. We're doing what we can to be part of the solution, by picking technologies we think will be useful for us and going out and testing them at scale, with a goal to start rolling out v6 in droves as well provide usable operator feedback re: our deployment to vendors and other operators alike. As much as we'd like to see how the market unravels re: v4, e.t.c., the fact remains that v6 is the inevitable solution. So best to get cracking now with real deployments. Mark.
participants (25)
-
Barry Shein -
Benson Schliesser -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Deepak Jain -
Don Gould -
Doug Barton -
Eric Parsonage -
Franck Martin -
Fred Baker -
Jared Mauch -
Jimmy Hess -
Joel jaeggli -
John Curran -
Keegan Holley -
Leigh Porter -
Mark Blackman -
Mark Tinka -
Matthew Kaufman -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Philip Dorr -
Randy Bush -
Roland Perry -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vitkovsky, Adam