On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:58:27 -0400, William Astle <lost@l-w.ca> wrote:

Like certain data centers attached to AS701 in Canada.

Or their end customers all over the world. Of course, they're no different than most other carriers. At the time we moved into this office, TWC wasn't available [TWCBC] (but they at least understood IPv6; metro-e has since been installed here), TWTC craftily avoided answering the question (the answer was "no"), AT&T gave a similar "we can't be bothered" answer (supported, but we aren't "big enough" to be connected to that gear), Earthlink (ITC Deltacom) had no idea what it was (I'm sure engineers did, but sales and support didn't.) Not that the company cares. Last reading of the checkpoint config, there wasn't any v6 in it anywhere. Which is a bit surprising as one of those fw's is in Hong Kong! ** TWC (residential) DOES support IPv6 now. I'm an Earthlink subscriber so I get none of that; they've not provided any prefixes.

the rirs have run out of their free source of short ints to rent to us. i am sure everyone will move to ipv6 in a week. news at eleven. randy

Our fundamental issue is that an IPv4 address has no real value as networks still give them away, it's pennies in your pocket. Everything of use needs to have a cost to motivate for change. Establishing that now won't create change it will first create greater conservation. There will be a cost that will be reached before change takes place on a scale that matters. Networks set the false perception and customer expectation that address space is free and readily available. Networks with plenty, still land many customers today by handing over a class C to customer with less than 10 servers and 5 people in an office. We have a greater supply for packets to travel than we do for addresses required to move packets. Do you know how many packets a single IP address can generate or utilize, if it was attached too "The World's Fastest Internet" in someplace like Canadaland or Sweden on init7's Fiber7 ? No matter how large the pipe the answer is always, "all of it". It's address space we should now place a price upon. Unlike, My Space's disappearance when Facebook arrived there is no quick jump to IPv6. There is no coordinated effort required that involves millions of people to change browser window content. But to answer your question... Everything that is handed over for free is perceived as having no value. Therefore, IPv4 has to cost much more than the cost to change to IPv6 today. While the IPv6 addresses are free, it is expensive to change. Businesses spend lots of money on a free lunches. It's going to take at least the price of one good lunch per IP address per month to create the consideration for change. That's about $30 for 2 people in California. Offering a /48 of free IPv6 space to everyone on the planet didn't make it happen. There is no financial incentive to move to IPv6. In fact there is more reason "not to change" than "to change". The new gear cost $$$ (lots of it didn't work well and required exploration to learn that), IT people need hours to implement (schedules are full of day-to-day issues), networks keep growing with offerings that drop Internet costs and save everyone money, business as usual is productive on IPv4 (business doesn't have time for distraction), many of us get distracted by something more immediate and interesting than buying a new wi-fi router for the home. What will come first ? A) the earths future core rotation changes altering the ionosphere in such a way that we are all exposed to continuous x-rays that shorten our lifespan OR B) the last IPv4 computer running will be reconfigured to IPv6 Thank You Bob Evans CTO

Randy,

How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it even going to happen at all?

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

...

the rirs have run out of their free source of short ints to rent to us. i am sure everyone will move to ipv6 in a week. news at eleven.

randy

Am 27.06.2015 um 16:38 schrieb Bob Evans:

We have a greater supply for packets to travel than we do for addresses required to move packets. Do you know how many packets a single IP address can generate or utilize, if it was attached too "The World's Fastest Internet" in someplace like Canadaland or Sweden on init7's Fiber7 ?

Thanks for mentioning Fiber7, which is actually available in Switzerland, not Sweden. And every Fiber7 customer gets a /48, too. -- Fredy Kuenzler --------------------- Fiber7. No Limits. https://www.fiber7.ch --------------------- Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. AS13030 St.-Georgen-Strasse 70 CH-8400 Winterthur Skype: flyingpotato Phone: +41 44 315 4400 Fax: +41 44 315 4401 Twitter: @init7 / @kuenzler http://www.init7.net/

Quite a few folks actually. (the 802.5 & 802.4 specs)…. This is kind of like asking when we will stop using ethernet framing (ethernet was designed for a 3Mbps transmission rate) yet we are deploying 100Gbps networks. Still stuck on that 1500byte limitation. When can we get rid of that? manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 27June2015Saturday, at 9:49, Bacon Zombie <baconzombie@gmail.com> wrote:

Is anybody still using IPX or TokenRing?

I've heard that TokenRing is over 9000 times better for iSCSI since you are guaranteed that the packets will not get collisions. On 27 Jun 2015 18:39, "Fredy Kuenzler" <kuenzler@init7.net> wrote:

...

Am 27.06.2015 um 16:38 schrieb Bob Evans:

...

We have a greater supply for packets to travel than we do for addresses required to move packets. Do you know how many packets a single IP address can generate or utilize, if it was attached too "The World's Fastest Internet" in someplace like Canadaland or Sweden on init7's Fiber7 ?

Thanks for mentioning Fiber7, which is actually available in Switzerland, not Sweden. And every Fiber7 customer gets a /48, too.

-- Fredy Kuenzler

--------------------- Fiber7. No Limits. https://www.fiber7.ch ---------------------

Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. AS13030 St.-Georgen-Strasse 70 CH-8400 Winterthur Skype: flyingpotato Phone: +41 44 315 4400 Fax: +41 44 315 4401 Twitter: @init7 / @kuenzler http://www.init7.net/

actually, 1500 byte frames require a very different buffering technique, since you have so many in flight at a given time. if your old enough, this equates to the 53byte ATM cells when the data rates were in the Megabit range. manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 27June2015Saturday, at 15:58, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:

On 06/27/2015 11:48 AM, manning wrote:

...

This is kind of like asking when we will stop using ethernet framing (ethernet was designed for a 3Mbps transmission rate) yet we are deploying 100Gbps networks. Still stuck on that 1500byte limitation. When can we get rid of that?

Speed has nothing to do with frame size. The 1500 byte limitation is more a function of the CRC algorithm. (Oh, the initial frame size was selected for 3-mbit Ethernet so that collision mitigation was reasonable.)

Think about jumbo frames (9000 bytes) and their robust error detection. Research is being done in even larger frames, because the rule is that as your transmission rate increases, you should increase the frame size and use a FRC algorithm that detects all one-bit errors and most two-bit errors, at least.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 08:02:52 -0700, Owen DeLong said:

...

On Jun 27, 2015, at 11:48 , manning <bmanning@karoshi.com> wrote:

Quite a few folks actually. (the 802.5 & 802.4 specs)…. This is kind of like asking when we will stop using ethernet framing (ethernet was designed for a 3Mbps transmission rate) yet we are deploying 100Gbps networks. Still stuck on that 1500byte limitation. When can we get rid of that?

Many networks have… It’s called “Jumbo Frames”

Unfortunately, enough people do things to break PMTU Discovery that it's not usually feasible to send jumbograms outside your directly controlled networks. So you may actually have jumbogram support all the way one end to the other, but you can't rely on it and have to throttle back to 1500 (or even smaller) in self-defense....

Is anybody still using IPX or TokenRing?

both great wide-area protocols. oh, wait. randy

I see your IPX and raise you Appletalk. Appletalk was king of fill up the WAN (64k or so in those days) with just broadcast traffic. Oh, are playing what sucked more than IPv4 ? ;Subject: RE: How long will it take to completely get rid of IPv4 or will it happen at all? ;IPX with EIGRP or NLSP wasn't bad over the WAN. Can't help you with TokenRing though.

Bob Evans wrote:

Our fundamental issue is that an IPv4 address has no real value as

still give them away, it's pennies in your pocket. Everything of use needs to have a cost to motivate for change. Establishing that now won't create change it will first create greater conservation. There will be a cost

networks that will

be reached before change takes place on a scale that matters.

Networks set the false perception and customer expectation that address space is free and readily available. Networks with plenty, still land many customers today by handing over a class C to customer with less than 10 servers and 5 people in an office.

We have a greater supply for packets to travel than we do for addresses required to move packets. Do you know how many packets a single IP address can generate or utilize, if it was attached too "The World's Fastest Internet" in someplace like Canadaland or Sweden on init7's Fiber7 ? No matter how large the pipe the answer is always, "all of it". It's address space we should now place a price upon. Unlike, My Space's disappearance when Facebook arrived there is no quick jump to IPv6. There is no coordinated effort required that involves millions of people to change browser window content.

But to answer your question...

Everything that is handed over for free is perceived as having no value. Therefore, IPv4 has to cost much more than the cost to change to IPv6 today. While the IPv6 addresses are free, it is expensive to change. Businesses spend lots of money on a free lunches. It's going to take at least the price of one good lunch per IP address per month to create the consideration for change. That's about $30 for 2 people in California. Offering a /48 of free IPv6 space to everyone on the planet didn't make it happen.

There is no financial incentive to move to IPv6. In fact there is more reason "not to change" than "to change". The new gear cost $$$ (lots of it didn't work well and required exploration to learn that), IT people need hours to implement (schedules are full of day-to-day issues), networks keep growing with offerings that drop Internet costs and save everyone money, business as usual is productive on IPv4 (business doesn't have time for distraction), many of us get distracted by something more immediate and interesting than buying a new wi-fi router for the home.

What will come first ? A) the earths future core rotation changes altering the ionosphere in such a way that we are all exposed to continuous x-rays that shorten our lifespan OR B) the last IPv4 computer running will be reconfigured to IPv6

Thank You Bob Evans CTO

Rewind the clock 20 years s/ipv4/sna/ s/ipv6/ipv4/ and/or rewind the clock 15 years s/ipv4/tdm/ s/ipv6/voip/ and your rant is exactly what was coming out of enterprises and carriers at those times. The only thing more constant than change in this industry is the intransigence of the luddites that believe they are the masters of the universe and will refuse to move with the tide. Sometimes (like in the case of IPv4) they can build a strong seawall that will hold the tide back for a decade, but rest assured that the tide always wins. I have looked and can't find the references, but I distinctly remember Businessweek or Fortune magazine covers in the late 90's with phrases to the effect of 'SNA Forever' or 'SNA is for real business/IPv4 is an experimental toy'. I have also been in meetings with carriers and been told "No end customer will ever fill a DS-3. Those are inter-city exchange circuits, and there isn't enough data in the world to fill one", having just told them we were connecting CERN to Cal-tech. To the point of the original question, look to history for some indication. While people in the late 90's were busy trying to figure out how to translate web pages to SNA terminals, within ~ 5 years, the noise was gone. I am sure you will still find pockets of legacy SNA in use, but nobody cares. Then look at the education system. Once you retire-out the tenured dinosaurs that are still teaching classfull IPv4, followed by a generation of upstarts that never learned about those tiny 32-bit locators which could only possibly identify <1% of the connected devices they are aware of, it will die off. Until then, it will move to the backwaters where nobody cares. When you ignore the costs of maintaining an ever crumbling foundation, and just look at the cost of replacement, then you can mentally justify staying in the past. If you are honest about the TCO, and include both the wizardry created by the network masters and the difficult to quantify increased cost of all the software that has to work around that, then a cost based analysis is valid. Unfortunately there has been enough myopic focus on network-specific costs on this list that a decade has been lost that could have been used to update software and reduce the future timeframe that IPv4 needs to be supported. While many on this list have bought into the hatred of the automated tunneling in Windows, that was put there specifically to provide a working API for the application developers. Breaking the stalemate between lack-of-apps that might use a network and lack-of-network on which to develop those apps, was possible by having the API mask out the lack of function in the underlying network. Unfortunately rather than enhance that capability, the angry mob took up arms and blocked it. The only thing wrong with 6to4 was the one-liner that said you could only announce a /12 into the IPv6 DFZ. If everyone had ignored that and set up local relays announcing the appropriate /20-48 matching their IPv4 prefix into the DFZ, and the IPv4-anycast only to their own customers, you would have had the functionality of 6rd in deployed code at least 5 years earlier. The fact that it was vilified rather than adapted speaks volumes about the unwillingness of the community to face the inevitable. There was a recent comment on the list that the IETF pushed dual-stack out the door and patted themselves on the back, which is absolutely untrue. I was the one that pushed the dual-stack mantra, and was put in the position of WG chair because I was standing in the back of the room during the BOF for the transition WG mumbling to myself 'been there, done that, doesn't scale' at the proposals being tossed out by the research community. Having just transitioned a collection of protocols to IPv4, the thing that worked best at a SYSTEM level was to deploy the new protocol alongside the old one, and let each app move in its own timeframe. Yes that was duplicate effort at the network level, but there are many more parts to the system, and from my experience those cost an order of magnitude more. While dual-stack does require IPv4, it was over 15 years ago when that statement was made, while it was still possible. In any case, the point of dual-stack was not to solve all problems, just to set a baseline of the long term network that apps could move to. For the cases where it was not economical to move the app, wizardry was appropriate, and the WG was defining additional corner-case tools. In another unfortunate case, one of those escaped over the objection of the chairs and was forced onto the standards track because several AD's insisted we needed a standard translator. That set back the process another 3-5 years, but the bigger failing was that the responsible AD (on this list) decided that 'we had enough tools already, we needed deployment', and shut the WG down. I really don't know what additional tools might have developed or been identified, and I really don't care about the WG closing, but this was not a case of one-size-fits-all and pat yourself on the back. This has been a long-winded way of saying, IPv4 will be replaced EVENTUALLY, and as Randy said, 'news at 11'. Tony

...

Randy,

How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it even going to happen at all?

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

...

the rirs have run out of their free source of short ints to rent to us. i am sure everyone will move to ipv6 in a week. news at eleven.

randy

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:38:43 -0700, "Bob Evans" said:

What will come first ? A) the earths future core rotation changes altering the ionosphere in such a way that we are all exposed to continuous x-rays that shorten our lifespan OR B) the last IPv4 computer running will be reconfigured to IPv6

Data point: I just ran a tcpdump looking for NTP packets going to 128.173.14.71. In 90 minutes, I got hits from 330 unique IP addresses, including some that were chatty enough to indicate there were dozens of hosts behind a NAT. The biggest offenders: % tcpdump -n -r ~/ntp.dump | cut -f3 -d' ' | cut -f1-4 -d'.' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -30 reading from file /home/valdis/ntp.dump, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet) 5507 200.195.163.227 3797 74.254.73.226 2989 200.19.200.174 1718 50.129.20.208 1160 200.169.44.45 1119 200.206.35.74 624 201.64.113.34 516 186.215.65.33 352 201.48.247.23 352 187.72.210.97 350 200.171.23.66 281 177.96.208.28 212 187.28.183.82 206 189.22.174.82 200 200.195.127.118 195 187.72.239.145 180 68.213.39.6 180 198.234.129.210 176 201.93.57.129 176 201.90.121.244 176 201.82.103.134 176 201.67.192.74 176 201.59.167.213 176 201.55.163.226 176 201.55.123.98 176 201.48.80.252 176 201.30.191.178 176 201.26.253.187 176 200.250.99.132 176 200.247.208.84 Note that 128.173.14.71 was an IBM RS/6000 taken out of service in June 1999, and we've not re-used the IP address since. So basically, anybody who has tried to get NTP from that address anytime this century has come up empty. The other scary number? % tcpdump -n -r ~/ntp.dump | grep NTP | cut -f6 -d' ' | sort | uniq -c reading from file /home/valdis/ntp.dump, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet) 413 NTPv1, 205 NTPv2, 34900 NTPv3, 2155 NTPv4, I'm not sure which scares me more - that there are boxes on the net *still* running v1 or v2, or boxes that have upgraded to v4 and are blindly using the same ntp.conf without bothering to sanity check if a clock is still usable....

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Rafael Possamai wrote:

How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it even going to happen at all?

I believe somewhere around 2018-2025 a lot of ISPs, hosting providers etc will start to treat IPv4 as a second rate citizen and for the people still single-stacked to IPv4 by then, the Internet experience is going to become so bad that they'll beg to get IPv6 and the ones not providing it will feel severe business impact of not doing IPv6. Mobile providers will be the first huge ones to go IPv6 only to the devices, which will mean that from your mobile device, IPv4 will most likely work worse than IPv6. Then it's downhill from there. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

What's the ratio of mobile (cellular) endpoints to non-mobile devices? And we know that mobile continues to grow faster than fixed endpoints -- at what point will the scales naturally tip to IPv6? -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 9:54 AM To: Rafael Possamai Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: ARIN just subdivided their last /17, /18, /19, /20, /21 and /22. Down to only /23s and /24s now. : ipv6 On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Rafael Possamai wrote:

How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it even going to happen at all?

I believe somewhere around 2018-2025 a lot of ISPs, hosting providers etc will start to treat IPv4 as a second rate citizen and for the people still single-stacked to IPv4 by then, the Internet experience is going to become so bad that they'll beg to get IPv6 and the ones not providing it will feel severe business impact of not doing IPv6. Mobile providers will be the first huge ones to go IPv6 only to the devices, which will mean that from your mobile device, IPv4 will most likely work worse than IPv6. Then it's downhill from there. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4?

not in our lifetimes

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote:

On Jun 27, 2015, at 5:35 AM, Rafael Possamai <rafael@gav.ufsc.br> wrote:

...

How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it even going to happen at all?

IPX ruled the roost, very popularly, for a little while. How long did it take to die? Why did it die? What were the triggers that pushed it over the cliff? I think there's a lot to be learned from that piece of recent history. Specifically, as a demonstration of how a "most popular" protocol can find itself ejected from the arena in the blink of an eye. I knew several people who built their career path on the assumptions of IPX. Ouch.

There are reasonable arguments that IPX was better than IPv4 but IPv4 had all the mind share as the standard and IPX was the proprietary alternative. So everyone switched but more than a few were not happy afterward when the noticed the features they had lost. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com

--lyndon

On 06/29/2015 01:16 AM, A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk wrote:

Hi,

...

I knew several people who built their career path on the assumptions of IPX. Ouch.

....or DECnet ;-)

Or XNS. On the other hand, people did have a nice career with SNA...but they weren't trying to push packets over the

It would not surprise me to find ARCnet (Datapoint's) still running in some corner somewhere. Thank You Bob Evans CTO

...

On Jun 29, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:

On 06/29/2015 01:16 AM, A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk wrote:

...

Hi,

...

I knew several people who built their career path on the assumptions of IPX. Ouch.

....or DECnet ;-)

Or XNS. On the other hand, people did have a nice career with SNA...but they weren't trying to push packets over the

“LAT”

-jav

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:23:27 -0400, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote:

IPX ruled the roost, very popularly, for a little while. How long did it take to die?

It isn't dead yet, but it's certainly on the endangered list.

Why did it die?

The death of Novell NetWare (and their transitioned to IP) killed it the enterprise. Games adopting IP for network play killed it in the home. Ultimately, it sucks as a WAN protocol, so the internet was built using this new fangled IP thing.

On 06/30/2015 07:28 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

There are still isolated pockets of devices out there speaking IPX, DECnet, Appletalk, etc, but either they're not connected to the 'Internet', or their traffic passes through other devices that encapsulate and de-encapsulate it in IP to allow it to be transported.

For the young (and the young at heart) those "other devices" were known as "bridges" back in the day.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:28:13 -0400, Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:

There are still isolated pockets of devices out there speaking IPX, DECnet, Appletalk, etc

Indeed. I'm one of them. (rarely) ... IPX managed print server. It speaks IP, but cannot be managed by IP. I'd throw it away, but it functions as a two port serial terminal server as well. (2 parallel, 2 serial) I don't have any true appletalk (or localtalk!) hardware anymore. But I know where there's a palet of them. :-) I still have MCA token-ring cards for an RS/6000 (and the RS/6000.) I'm just waiting for the NCDOT to need one to recoup a wad of tax money.

or their traffic passes through other devices that encapsulate and de-encapsulate it in IP to allow it to be transported.

Ahhhh, the "internet in a box" IPX-IP gateway device. God, how we hated those things. But some companies refused to install an IP stack, 'tho they'd install the IPX "IP app" suite. (late '90s)

UUCP. Someone had to mention it. So I did. And BITNET I guess. -- -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*

Except for AfriNIC And so we'll get to hear "the sky is falling" one last time Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)

On Jun 27, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

the rirs have run out of their free source of short ints to rent to us. i am sure everyone will move to ipv6 in a week. news at eleven.

randy