[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6

On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Today, though, Vista bombed hard, and it's too early to see what  
>>>> Win 7
>>>> will do - but I frankly don't see a huge reason to switch to it,  
>>>> and
>>>> I have both Win XP and Win 7 at home and in the office.  And  
>>>> seriously,
>>>> folks, does everyone here understand that Microsoft will be  
>>>> releasing security updates and patches to XP Professional until  
>>>> 4/8/2014?  That
>>>> is almost 5 years from now.  You can be sure that XP will be a  
>>>> significant number of installed seats on the Internet until then,  
>>>> and
>>>> as long as it is, IPv6 isn't going to be widely deployed.
>>>> As for IPv4+, or whatever alternative you dream up, unless you  
>>>> have MS
>>>> buy-in, then you can just forget it.  And MS is backing IPv6
>>>> Ted
>>> AMEN!!!, +1, You got it man!
>> 1. The lack of IPv6-only name resolution is not a significant  
>> barrier to
>>    IPv6 deployment. It would be a significant barrier to IPv4  
>> removal.
>> 2. If M$ is going to be releasing patches to XP until 2014, then,  
>> why would
>>    you assume those patches will never include a patch that enables
>>    DNS resolution from an IPv6 nameserver?
>> In reality, this is only really an issue if you are attempting to  
>> deploy an XP
>> system in an IPv6-only environment. As long as you deploy it in an  
>> IPv4 only
>> or a dual-stack environment and provide it at least one IPv4-based  
>> resolver,
>> things will work with IPv6.
> I think this is wishful thinking.  It was certainly very possible to  
> dual-stack IPX and IP and for a few years people did - but most admins
> hated it - and pressured Novell to adopt IP and abandon IPX.  Novell
> of course did not want to do that as it would unlock customers from
> NetWare - with the result that admins basically gave up on NetWare
> and went to Windows NT Server.  (of course there were other reasons  
> too)
> Dual-stack is a problem in the corporate world because you have  
> increased training costs.  Admins switched internal networks to
> IP last time because the Internet pushed them to do it.  Likely
> they will want to wait until significant IPv6 is deployed on the
> Internet before switching internal networks to IPv6 this time, and
> nothing on the Internet is doing the pushing to IPv6, which is why
> I think it will be a longer time coming.
I don't really see this as a problem.  Getting desktops over to dual  
really is last priority in my book.  The important thing is getting  
and content providers dual-stacked, because, the first systems that will
get forced to IPv6-only will be those that come on-line after IPv4  
Likely the bulk of those will be end-users of some form or other.

> Don't forget most corps are on licensing agreements with MS that give
> them rights to run ANY PRIOR version of Windows in addition to the
> corporate one.  Regardless of whether XP is available on pre-loads
> or not, many corps. will be buying Vista systems them loading XP
> images on them for some time.
Again, I really don't see this as a problem.  Enterprise Desktop  
of IPv6 really is last priority and for those enterprises that don't  
to get it done in time, they are the ones that will suffer the impacts.