[arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML)

Mon May 14 20:02:34 EDT 2012

I agree with this.

Targeting end users will have minimal impact.

If you look at some numbers.. What percentage will even understand the issue?  Of those that do who will care?

For example go to a neighborhood with docsis 3 cable and ask to charge them a small fee to upgrade to pon or active optical.. Docsis 3 is plenty fast for most users.  They are going to stop paying attention.

Some sort of cutover date say 5 years out with ramped up ipv4 fees each year.

In the hosting business there are still companies buying gear that doesn't even know what ipv6 is.  Knowing ipv4 will cease to be used in say 5 years would change the mindset of a lot into transitioning faster.

/me prepares to get yelled at for this comment.

On May 14, 2012, at 6:45 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>> wrote:

Lets explore that question. First, my point of reference. I have over 20,000 residential consumers (end users) directly connected on my network. I am a service provider and the owner. I also have an equal number of enterprise and service provider customers but they aren't in scope of this conversation. I rolled out IPv6 to all of my residential users and NAT their v4. I didn't get any complaints about things not working. Tellingly, I also didn't get a single user out of that 20,000 end users that even noticed they had a v6 address. AT&T as well as any other carrier can do this today. The technology to do this has existed for over a decade.

I am Joe Blow next door to you. My internet works, all my needs are met, we'll say it's FiOS so it's "fast". What would compel me to ask verizon why they aren't supporting IPv6? Will my internet be faster? Will my internet be more reliable? Will I gain any functionality by utilizing v6? The answer to all these questions is invariably "no". Trumpeting v6 to end users is both inefficient and un-compelling.

Again, using Westfield as an example. What would compel me to go to my carrier and demand v6 address space? It's more work for me, it provides no additional functionality in the next budgetary cycle. Why bother?

ARIN has a tool (the only tool ARIN has in fact) of setting requirements before assigning additional address space. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that this tool is either not being wielded or it is not being wielded effectively. Otherwise I would be getting assigned a v6 address by AT&T today.

By directly targeting enterprise and end users we would be going about it backwards. I as a service provider chose to put all my residential users on v6 space. The size of perceived nimbleness of AT&T or Verizon is irrelevant. Remember the adage Necessity breeds ingenuity? If they can't get more address space unless they start making concrete efforts to roll out v6 to their end users they will not change their behaviour.

--
Jesse D. Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

From: Babak Pasdar <bpasdar at batblue.com<mailto:bpasdar at batblue.com>>
Organization: Bat Blue Networks
Reply-To: "bpasdar at batblue.com<mailto:bpasdar at batblue.com>" <bpasdar at batblue.com<mailto:bpasdar at batblue.com>>
Date: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:24 PM
To: Jesse Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>>, John Brown <john at citylinkfiber.com<mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com>>
Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>" <arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML)

Jesse,

Could it be that your view is based on your own experiences with carriers and customers and that may not reflect the industry on average.  The people who don't don't understand the concept of data centers or how the Internet works are not the folks that I (and most likely the rest of the respondents in this thread) are targeting.

Also, I do not see AT&T as an organization that is competitively agile to be a leader in this space.  Others have and most likely will continue to lead on this.  When they do, AT&T will follow.

Best Regards,

Babak

--
Babak Pasdar | President & CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker | Bat Blue Networks
(p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (w) BatBlue.com<http://batblue.com/> | (t) @bpasdar<https://twitter.com/bpasdar> : @batblue<https://twitter.com/batblue>

Learn About Cloud Security: Cloud Security Video<http://www.batblue.com/page.php?96> | Cloud Network Video<http://www.batblue.com/page.php?97>

Bat Blue is The Official Provider for ESPN X Games<http://www.batblue.com/page.php?72>
________________________________
From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
To: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com]
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net<mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net> [mailto:arin-discuss at arin.net]
Sent: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:16:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (From PPML)

I don't mean to be contrary here but these concepts are far too abstract for 99.9% of end users whom will have no point of reference. Most people I talk to didn't even know of the existence of data centres let alone have any clue what v4 vs v6 is. And why should they? There would be no direct benefit to the end user being on v6 over v4 or both. To them their "Internet" either works or it doesn't. Requiring implementation by the major carriers who are dragging their feet by saying no more IPs until they show they are on board is much more compelling.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
(626) 675-3176
ASN 16602

On May 14, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "John Brown" <john at citylinkfiber.com<mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com>> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> IPv6 uptake is about end-users having a reason to care.
> When they care, then the $ervice providers care.
>
> I suspect that when the 3.141 /8's are gone from ARIN, then people will
> really care and FAST.
>
> I still have service providers that tell me they don't have IPv6 available
> today. National transit providers aren't fully supporting it yet.
>
> We have to find something(s) that will get the end user to give a darn and
> WANT IT.
>
> On 5/14/12 4:23 PM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com<mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>> I would oppose this unless you're also willing to waive IPv6 assignment
>>> fees that do not accompany an IPv4 resource application. I see no
>>> benefit to the community from requiring people to consume extra IPv4
>>> just to get a free IPv6 assignment. (Well, actually, I do see a small
>>> benefit in exhausting IPv4 and getting on with transition faster, but, I
>>> don't think it's necessarily good stewardship).
>>
>> You're right Owen, I was over-simplifying. My fear is that a total fee
>> waiver may hurt ARIN financially. Even free initial-assignments may
>> cause harm.
>>
>> I don't have ARINs budget at my fingertips, perhaps a staffer can let
>> us know how much it might cost to make initial IPv6 assignments (to
>> end-users) free for a year and then half price for a year.
>>
>> That would do two things: First, it lowers a potential barrier, pure
>> cost of assignment. Second, it puts a touch of urgency on initial IPv6
>> requests: "Hey boss, we have to at least get our assignment this year
>> if we don't want to be forced to pay later..."
>>
>> ~Chris
>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO 1A and 2A might usefully go together as a carrot + stick approach.
>>>> A little extra attestation work in exchange for a "get v6 free with
>>>> your v4" offer should encourage v6 adoption without increasing the
>>>> overall time+cost burden on the orgs applying for space.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com<mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Four ideas to promote IPv6 deployment, for your consideration and
>>>>> discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Make it as easy as possible for an org who actually wants IPv6 to
>>>>> get it. This is mostly in place today (allocation fee waivers, one
>>>>> maint. fee per Org ID, ease of qualification, etc.) but there is still
>>>>> some possible room for improvement:
>>>>> 1A) Waive IPv6 assignment fees for end-users who request both IPv4
>>>>> and IPv6 simultaneously.
>>>>> 1B) Move the </40 small/x-small threshold to <=/48.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Provide additional motivation for orgs to request and deploy IPv6.
>>>>> There are several top of mind methods to accomplish this:
>>>>> 2A) Require the officer attestation to acknowledge the current
>>>>> state of affairs regarding IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 requirements.
>>>>> 2B) Continue or even ramp up (especially targeting end users) ARINs
>>>>> outreach efforts (which have been substantial in previous years but
>>>>> are being wound down post IANA-exhaustion).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> ~Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> @ChrisGrundemann
>>>>> http://chrisgrundemann.com
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ARIN-Discuss
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net>).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ARIN-Discuss
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net>).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @ChrisGrundemann
>> http://chrisgrundemann.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Discuss
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-discuss at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
<ATT00001.c>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120514/234dffad/attachment.html>