[arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 6/28/2010 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/25/2010 10:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/25/2010 11:38 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> To:
>>>>>> arin-discuss at arin.net Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the US the ISP market is at saturation, it has matured
>>>>>> and nobody is really growing unless someone else is
>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Caribbean is growing at a good pace. See also any
>>>>> statistics about growth, and make sure to include devices
>>>>> with IP capabilities (handhelds, consoles, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can easily imagine a scenario where the rest of the world
>>>>>> ends up moving to IPv6 and sells it's IPv4 back to ISP's
>>>>>> in the US via the transfer market.
>>>>>
>>>>> Potential transfer recipients in the US will be competing
>>>>> against potential recipients within the region of origin.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet experience consists mainly of accessing Hulu,
>>>>>> Ebay, and CNN, since clearly the content providers are
>>>>>> going to be the very last ones to go to IPv6-only.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, in process of being
>>>>> acquired by Comcast, which is deploying IPv6. "The
>>>>> public-facing eBay Web site will be upgraded for what's
>>>>> called dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 access in 2011. "
>>>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020410-ipv6-web-sites.html?page=1
>>>>>
>>>>>
CNN is served by a CDN, so it will be available when the CDN is.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear that content providers will be last.  There
>>>>> are good reasons for content providers to prefer IPv6 over
>>>>> the alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the content providers are getting any money for providing
>>>> content (ie: advertising revenue) then they will definitely be
>>>> last to drop IPv4.
>>>>
>>> Who cares... Dropping IPv4 is irrelevant. What counts is when
>>> they add IPv6.
>>
>> Why?  If I'm a customer with IPv4 and my content provider of choice
>> adds IPv6 without ANY additional content, why would I want to spend
>> the money to upgrade my stuff to get the same thing over IPv6?
>>
>> Ted
>
> Who cares?  The important thing is that new eyeball users that are
> unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre
> hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity.
>

I don't get horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity when I surf the web from
my Windows Mobile 5 Smartphone on Sprint's network, and my wife doesn't
get horribly degraded connectivity when she surfs the web from her
Android phone on the T mobile network - but both those phones are on an
IPv6 network, using some bizarre IPv6-IPv4 proxy back at the cell 
companies NOC.

Or as Homer Simpson would say,

Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks

Seriously, it should be obvious that the economics of rolling out a 
brand new technology that is going to use IPv6-only plus a bizarre
hack to access the IPv4 Internet, is going to guarantee that the
bizarre hack is going to be hacked on until it works quite well.

NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say?  Yet most users are
happy with it.

I think the issue here is not that bizarre hacks will create horribly
degraded IPv4 connectivity.  I think the issue is that bizarre V6-V4
hacks will get institutionalized, which will make it a lot more 
difficult to ultimately drop IPv4 and go IPv6 only.  That is a separate 
and valid concern, but FUDing it around isn't going to help anything.

Technology companies have a long history of making bizarre hacks
work.  Just look at Microsoft Windows, one of the most bizarre hacks
in the history of technology (followed closely by Mac OS 6, 7, 8 & 9.)

Ted

> Owen
>
>