If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool now. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html Robert D. Scott Robert@ufl.edu Network Engineer 3 352-273-0113 Phone UF Information Technology 321-663-0421 Cell Network Services 352-273-0743 FAX University of Florida Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 3216630421@messaging.sprintpcs.com
I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest! (just kidding) Owen
On Jul 14, 2015, at 04:37 , Scott, Robert D. <robert@ufl.edu> wrote:
If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool now.
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
Robert D. Scott Robert@ufl.edu Network Engineer 3 352-273-0113 Phone UF Information Technology 321-663-0421 Cell Network Services 352-273-0743 FAX University of Florida Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 3216630421@messaging.sprintpcs.com
Owen DeLong wrote:
I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", so the lack of fee income would not be a major loss.
(just kidding)
I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the distraction might help with those still holding out hope. Tony
Owen
On Jul 14, 2015, at 04:37 , Scott, Robert D. <robert@ufl.edu> wrote:
If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool
now.
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
Robert D. Scott Robert@ufl.edu Network Engineer 3 352-273-0113 Phone UF Information Technology 321-663-0421 Cell Network Services 352-273-0743 FAX University of Florida Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 3216630421@messaging.sprintpcs.com
My proposal to dump the rest of the v4 space this way was rejected as a policy proposal already. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)
On Jul 14, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", so the lack of fee income would not be a major loss.
(just kidding)
I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the distraction might help with those still holding out hope.
Tony
Owen
On Jul 14, 2015, at 04:37 , Scott, Robert D. <robert@ufl.edu> wrote:
If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool
now.
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
Robert D. Scott Robert@ufl.edu Network Engineer 3 352-273-0113 Phone UF Information Technology 321-663-0421 Cell Network Services 352-273-0743 FAX University of Florida Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 3216630421@messaging.sprintpcs.com
"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> writes:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", so the lack of fee income would not be a major loss.
(just kidding)
I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the distraction might help with those still holding out hope.
It won't be long, ARIN has been processing over 350 IPv4 requests each of the last few months.
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake. --Curtis On 7/14/2015 7:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the distraction might help with those still holding out hope. i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is increasing slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire.
randy
-- Best Regards Curtis Maurand Principal Xyonet Web Hosting mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com http://www.xyonet.com
On Jul 14, 2015, at 16:09, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake.
Who is the layman in this story? Almost every system I work with at home and in the datacenter has IPv6 turned on by default. If someone wandered through those networks, and started turning on IPv6 infrastructure so that they started getting IPv6 addresses, my bet is that most of the java-based applications would already be bound to the stacks in such a way that they would just start sending traffic over IPv6. I base this on the fact that any number of developers have been confused by “::” being somewhere in their world now. Those people don’t care about the network, or IPv4 vs IPv6. It would just work. Now, if layman == Network Operators, and Networking people at Corporations, well, there you might be right. Cheers, -j
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall. -C On 7/14/2015 7:57 PM, James Downs wrote:
On Jul 14, 2015, at 16:09, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake. Who is the layman in this story? Almost every system I work with at home and in the datacenter has IPv6 turned on by default. If someone wandered through those networks, and started turning on IPv6 infrastructure so that they started getting IPv6 addresses, my bet is that most of the java-based applications would already be bound to the stacks in such a way that they would just start sending traffic over IPv6. I base this on the fact that any number of developers have been confused by “::” being somewhere in their world now. Those people don’t care about the network, or IPv4 vs IPv6. It would just work.
Now, if layman == Network Operators, and Networking people at Corporations, well, there you might be right.
Cheers, -j
-- Best Regards Curtis Maurand Principal Xyonet Web Hosting mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com http://www.xyonet.com
In message <55A5B873.5010602@xyonet.com>, Curtis Maurand writes:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
-C
Absolute garbage. CPE already ship with basically the same controls for IPv6 as for IPv4. Default block in except reply traffic + specified holes for services you want to open up to the world. The is same paradigm that has been in use in IPv4 for a years now. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
15. Jul 2015 01:33 by cmaurand@xyonet.com:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
-C
You're right! Let's call the whole thing off[1] 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oEmPP5dTM
On Jul 14, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
Are we *still* doing this argument?!? block all pass out on $extif keep state Is it that fucking difficult for people to figure out? Really?
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
-C
Enabling IPv6 on my CPE was extremely difficult, yes. It took three extra clicks to enable connection sharing and then subsequently enable incoming connections.
Since IPV6 does not have NAT,
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/ipv6-nat..., but perhaps you meant something else.
it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall.
Not really. I suspect a stateful firewall for IPv6 will look pretty indistinguishable from a NAT.
deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple.
Now, yes.
ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level.
I haven't found it to be. In fact, in my home network (Comcast+Apple gear), it sort of just happened. I don't recall configuring anything special.
yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
All clients also get router/firewall. Regards, -drc
Wait… You’re trying to convince me that it’s easier to understand “You have this box in the way. It blocks many of the packets you want and some of the packets you don’t want. It also does weird things to the header in the process.” than it is to understand “You have this box. By default it only allows outbound connections and blocks all incoming connections. You can tell it what you want to permit inbound. Your packet headers are the same on both sides of the box.” You have a different definition of “easy to understand” than I do. Owen
On Jul 14, 2015, at 18:33 , Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
-C
On 7/14/2015 7:57 PM, James Downs wrote:
On Jul 14, 2015, at 16:09, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake. Who is the layman in this story? Almost every system I work with at home and in the datacenter has IPv6 turned on by default. If someone wandered through those networks, and started turning on IPv6 infrastructure so that they started getting IPv6 addresses, my bet is that most of the java-based applications would already be bound to the stacks in such a way that they would just start sending traffic over IPv6. I base this on the fact that any number of developers have been confused by “::” being somewhere in their world now. Those people don’t care about the network, or IPv4 vs IPv6. It would just work.
Now, if layman == Network Operators, and Networking people at Corporations, well, there you might be right.
Cheers, -j
-- Best Regards Curtis Maurand Principal Xyonet Web Hosting mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com http://www.xyonet.com
Randy Bush wrote:
I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the distraction might help with those still holding out hope.
i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is increasing slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire.
Are you planning to retire this year? Select a logistic curve for 1800 days forward at: https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator for what is happening. Tony
On 7/14/15, 11:16 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Randy Bush" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of randy@psg.com> wrote:
While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator for what is happening.
we're an isp, with ipv6 enabled since 1997. we measure real traffic, not wishes of what could be.
I don¹t know how much of your traffic is IPv6, but ³10% by the time we retire² sure looks like a prediction. If it¹s number of users, that¹s well above 10%. IPv6 support in a couple of video streaming devices would push it well past that. I hope you¹re right about retiring at 10%it would be great to have the resources to retire this year. Lee
randy
participants (15)
-
Curtis Maurand -
David Conrad -
Geoffrey Keating -
James Downs -
Lee Howard -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Mark Andrews -
Matthew Kaufman -
Nicholas Suan -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Scott, Robert D. -
Tony Hain -
tqr2813d376cjozqap1l＠tutanota.com -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu