[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Leo Bicknell
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:46 AM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
>
>
>In a message written on Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:51AM -0800, Ted 
>Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> There is not, to my knowledge, a SINGLE CPE, ie: DSL modem, cable modem,
>> Linksys/Netgear/Dlink/whatever ethernet-to-ethernet router that speaks
>> IPv6.  Other than the test firmware that was written for a Linksys I
>
>Apple Airport Extreme.  IPv6 routing, 6to4 tunneling and manual
>tunnels out of the box.
>

I think the Time Capsule will be kicking the Airport's ass pretty
quick now - do you know if it's also IPv6?  But, what was that I
said about a $500 device?

Seriously, with all due respect to Apple, the marketing on the Airport
is entirely focused on Macintoshes.  Most PC users don't think that
the Airport will work with anything other than a Mac.  While this
undoubtedly helps the sales of the Airport to the Mac community,
it makes it a niche product along the lines of the Linux-based
alternative firmware for wireless routers in terms of market penetration.

I happen to use a PC running FreeBSD as my own home router on my
home DSL line - it also can be an IPv6 compliant router.

>> A very large number of residential users run multiple computers, both
>> laptops on wireless or small hubs.  Their ISP can, of course, easily
>> assign them a subnet of IPv6.  But, they will need a router at their
>> site to route the IPv6 subnet.
>
>Perhaps if your cable modem, often provided by the ISP, dropped off
>a /64 there would be a lot of users who had no need for a NAT/Router.

There's no reason that this couldn't happen.  All you would need to
do is write some stateful inspection firewall code in there, very
easy to do, Cisco had this running in 8MB of flash/4MB of RAM
in a 2500 almost a decade ago.

>WiFi boxes may not be manageable over IPv6, but can broadcast an
>IPv6 network at layer 2 in this configuration.  The primary reason
>people have "routers" today is they get a single IP, so they need
>a NAT gatway to connect multiple computers.  Providing a /64 makes
>that unnecessary, which largely means support in those boxes is a
>non-issue.
>
>Imagine that, removing a box from the network, reducing cost,
>complexity, and configuration.
>

I'd love it.  The problem is you got all these CPE makers out
there like Broadexnt, Westell, Efficient Networks, ActionTec, and
so on, who under OEM contracts with telcos like Southwestern Bell,
and cable companies, 6 years ago created DSL and Cable modems that
had NAT code - with the principle purpose of preventing the Telco
ISP's networks from melting down under attacks from infected Windows
boxes.

Those customers all paid their ounce of flesh 3-4 years ago for
those devices, and those CPE makers made their profits, disbursed
their bonuses and such to their employees, and their dividends to
their shareholders, and ended those product lines, or came out
with new models.

Your now asking them to go back into in some case 8 year old microcode
and rewrite it.  How exactly do they make a profit doing this?
They don't.  They will be happy to sell you brand NEW devices that
will support IPv6 (I would assume) but they aren't wanting to
undercut their new product by brushing up perfectly good, working,
-old- product so it's compliant with a new IP numbering system.
Cisco and Juniper can pull that with commercial gear because so
much of it is under service contracts that continually fund that,
but this is residential consumer gear and it doesen't work that
way.

The end users, naturally, aren't going to want to spend the money
for new devices if their old ones are still working.

That is why the HD-TV changeover is the way it is.  I don't want to
beat a dead horse but I keep returning to this analogy because it's
an example of a technological upgrade done properly.  ALL of the
consmers get screwed over ALL at the SAME time, so there isn't any
of this nonsense of upsetting the various broadcasters markets -
your not for example increasing ABC's market share because NBC went
to HD-TV before they did.  Everyone goes to it all at the same time.
Consumers have no recourse but to spend the money for converters or
new TV's.  The increased content is available all at the same time.

This is the way the IPv4->IPv6 transition should be managed and
it's a shame that it's a bunch of techs in charge of it, rather
than a bunch of marketing people (like in TV-land) because the
techs have no marketing sense whatsoever, and what we are going to
end up with is going to be 100 times more painful than what it
could be.

It's like ripping off the bandage quick or slow - the IPv6 conversion
is ripping it off slow, so we will have lots of years of excruciating
pain to deal with.  Ah well, I guess there's some small consolation -
when we get tired of dealing with it at the end of the day we can
go home an watch a decent movie our 40 inch HD-TV's!

Ted