[arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

>> 
>> 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.
> 

Right... Neither of you is a post-runout new eye-ball at this time and no, you are not
correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is actually working.

First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll see that your phones
still just have IPv4 addresses. Eventually, as I understand the plans from both of
those providers, LTE will put you onto IPv6 most of the time with short-term leases
of IPv4 addresses when you need IPv4 connectivity. The network will remain dual-
stack.

So, no, you are not currently using some bizarre ipv6-ipv4 proxy back at the
cell company NOC or anywhere else. At least not yet.

> Or as Homer Simpson would say,
> 
> Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks
> 
lol

> 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.
> 
Why? Why not instead work towards a much cleaner solution of eliminating the need
to access the IPv4 internet? If the content and services people want are available on
IPv4 and IPv6, then, there's no need for bizarre hacks to allow ipv6-only clients to
reach IPv4-only content.

> NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say?  Yet most users are
> happy with it.
> 
Most users are happy with a great many things that are neither in their best
interests nor necessarily good for the community. Most users are happy to
keep putting gasoline in their automobiles, ignoring the damage being
done as BP "brings oil to america's shores" as we speak. For a long time,
most users were happy to try and get over viral diseases using antibiotics
even though they had no positive effect against the virus and helped to
breed antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria in the process.

> 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.
> 
I think that both are valid concerns, but, my more immediate concern
is that bizarre hacks will create horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity with
a second order effect that user perception of acceptable will move from the
current moderately degraded situation to something even worse.

> 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.)
> 
I think your statement here makes my point.

Owen