[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> Where can I buy these NAT-PT and Teredo boxes and ALGs?

NAT-PT, Teredo and ALGs are software, not hardware. You install
them on whatever boxes you wish according to the load that you
want to handle.

>  How much do 
> they cost, particularly at scale? 

Whatever commodity hardware costs for you.

> And where can I get all of the 
> middleboxes (firewalls, network management systems, VPN 
> concentrators, 
> load balancers, etc.) to support native IPv6? 

Start at ARIN's IPv6 wiki at http://www.getipv6.info and follow up
with some of the vendors there. In the case of software solutions
like Miredo, if you can't do it in-house, contact your favorite local
consultants to set it up for you. There is no such thing as
IPv6 ISP-in-a-box. You still have to chase the vendors to get the
features that you want, just as in the IPv4 world.

> It's pretty 
> clear to me 
> that we are *not* ready to do IPv6-only networking without dual-stack.

Dual-stack is not a way to do IPv6-only networking. Please re-read your
sentence slowly and check the definition of "only" and "dual-stack".
Here is an ISOC briefing from 2002 http://www.isoc.org/briefings/006/
that makes it pretty clear what dual-stack means.

> > If an ISP can't make the Internet a basically seamless service,
> > regardless of IPv6 or IPv4, then they simply won't survive against
> > their more nimble competition. 
> 
> You are arguing that some networks will run IPv6, some will run IPv4, 
> and there will be devices that happily translate between the 
> two. 

No, I'm saying that we are entering a transition period when
ISPs implementing IPv6 will also have to set up transition mechanisms
for IPv4 traffic, and when IPv4 ISPs will also be forced into
implementing
transition mechanisms because the global public Internet will be 
a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6. Since people nowadays tend to move their
computing endpoints from place to place, all ISPs will need to support
IPv4 and IPv6 users to some degree or other.

> I am 
> arguing that no one will go IPv6-only right away, everyone 
> who does IPv6 
> will want do dual-stack, and that they'll need IPv4 addresses 
> to do so. 

Which means that dual-stack is a short term solution which most
people will not be able to *GROW* after IPv4 addresses run out.
Ten years ago this looked like a good way to transition, but not
anymore. Companies who make the technical choices which allow
them to grow their IPv6 infrastructure without adding IPv4 addresses
will have an advantage in the next few years.

There are a number of large network operators with MPLS core networks
and these companies have discovered that it is relatively easy to
add IPv6 edge routers using 6PE without disrupting the rest of their
network. I expect 100% of MPLS networks to take this route and I
strongly recommend IPv4 core networks to begin today in evaluating
GRE or PWE3 IPv6 overlay network possibilities (or MPLS transition).

> > One thing that ARIN staff could do to help this process would be
> > to run a v6/v4  agnostic and fully transparent meeting network. 

> Sounds like an admirable goal, as is a similar exercise to 
> turn off IPv4 
> at the upcoming IETF plenaries and try to get people to 
> communicate with 
> the IPv4 Internet from an IPv6-only network.

I strongly disagree. The IETF plan is to slap people in the
face hoping that they will wake up and be happy. I am suggesting
that ARIN could take a technical leadership role and demonstrate
how a mixed Internet is possible without slapping people in the
face.

>  However, until someone 
> succeeds at demonstrating how this can be done 
> cost-effectively at ISP 
> scale, 

As with any kind of scaling, the first step is to show that it
can be done.

--Michael Dillon