[ppml] Buying time...
schiller at uu.net
Tue Apr 24 17:30:22 EDT 2007
Many IPS have a normal 5 year refresh cycle. Depending on where they are
in the process, starting an upgrade now may short cut the refresh cycle
and require an investment in hardware upgrades (ISPs require packet
forwarding in hardware, and not all hardware that forward IPv4 traffic in
hardware can also forward IPv6 in hardware). These investments would be
in IPv6 which generate no new revune.
Large networks can take a long time to upgrade if a fork-lift upgrade is
required (think 2-3 years).
Jason Schiller (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com
The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:41:27 -0400
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Buying time...
> I don't really agree with the need for "buying" more time for deploying
> IPv6. It will take 1, 2 or 3 years more, but there will be no new products
> in the market in 1-2 years that don't support IPv6.
> Market will not accept it, and manufacturers will have no interest on doing
> so, just a matter of competition.
> Now, even if (some) ISPs decide not to deploy IPv6, neither transition tools
> in their networks, the addresses needed for running IPv4-only devices
> (considering the increase in the use of NAT if required), are already there.
> We don't need many more IPv4 addresses for keeping the network that we have
> today and the grown in the next couple of years.
> If we ever do anything, it will be just an artificial measure, never a
> perfectly fair solution. There is no way we can decide that we need to
> reserve some of the /8s for this or that region. Based on what ? And what if
> the development progress on this or that region is different after two years
> ? It may be a fair distribution now, but it can be radically different in 2
> I also believe, as indicated already today in the previous session, that as
> much as we progress with IPv6 deployment and more traffic is dominant versus
> IPv4 one, there will be more and more core/distribution/access networks that
> will turn to be only-IPv6 instead of dual stack (always keeping the LANs
> with dual stack, even with private IPv4 and NAT), using mechanisms such as
> softwires to automatically setup IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels for those
> applications/hosts that are not yet (or never will be) IPv6 ready. This will
> mean that some of the today used IPv4 addressing space may be returned, very
> slowly, and reused just in case new networks appear and they still decide to
> be dual stack for whatever reason (I tend to think that it will not make
> sense if IPv6 traffic is becoming dominant, but may be cases that I'm not
> thinking about).
> > De: Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net>
> > Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> > Fecha: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:02:54 -0300
> > Para: 'ARIN PPML' <ppml at arin.net>
> > Asunto: Re: [ppml] Buying time...
> > Tony, Bill:
> > I think that the situation is a bit more
> > complicated that what I can understand from your comments.
> > I agree regarding IPv6 is the solution, but IPv6
> > will not be widely adopted only because we think that would be the solution.
> > So, we will have to deal with IPv4 still for some
> > more time. And we have to work in ensuring the
> > same possibilities of access to IPv4 resources to everybody around the world.
> > IMHO we have to work in making IPv6 more feasible
> > bat also in paralel we have to work in optimizing
> > the usage of IPv4. It can be done in a "non very
> > painful" way. I guess that nobody can obstract
> > Intenet development. Concluding, "buying time"
> > could be benefitial for the community, and it is enough for me.
> > Raúl
> > At 03:45 p.m. 24/04/2007, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> >>> The discussion about 'buying time' to prepare for IPv6 is just
> >>> a stalling tactic that will only make the
> >> eventual effort that much more
> >>> painful. It is absolutely understandable
> >> that people want to have more time
> >>> to prepare, but to do that they should have started earlier. Making the
> >>> current processes more painful for new
> >> comers just so the lethargic can feel
> >>> better is not 'stewardship'.
> >> Agreed. ARIN just isn't in a position to save people from themselves.
> >> We're running out of v4. The solution to that is v6. If people want to
> >> avail themselves of the solution, it's there. We can't force them, and
> >> it's twenty years too late to come up with a different solution.
> >> -Bill
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> >> (PPML at arin.net).
> >> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.10/774
> >> - Release Date: 23/04/2007 05:26 p.m.
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> > (PPML at arin.net).
> > Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
More information about the ARIN-PPML