[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Today, though, Vista bombed hard, and it's too early to see what  
>>>> Win 7
>>>> will do - but I frankly don't see a huge reason to switch to it,  
>>>> and
>>>> I have both Win XP and Win 7 at home and in the office.  And  
>>>> seriously,
>>>> folks, does everyone here understand that Microsoft will be  
>>>> releasing security updates and patches to XP Professional until  
>>>> 4/8/2014?  That
>>>> is almost 5 years from now.  You can be sure that XP will be a  
>>>> significant number of installed seats on the Internet until then,  
>>>> and
>>>> as long as it is, IPv6 isn't going to be widely deployed.
>>>> As for IPv4+, or whatever alternative you dream up, unless you  
>>>> have MS
>>>> buy-in, then you can just forget it.  And MS is backing IPv6
>>>> Ted
>>>
>>> AMEN!!!, +1, You got it man!
>>>
>> 1. The lack of IPv6-only name resolution is not a significant  
>> barrier to
>>    IPv6 deployment. It would be a significant barrier to IPv4  
>> removal.
>> 2. If M$ is going to be releasing patches to XP until 2014, then,  
>> why would
>>    you assume those patches will never include a patch that enables
>>    DNS resolution from an IPv6 nameserver?
>> In reality, this is only really an issue if you are attempting to  
>> deploy an XP
>> system in an IPv6-only environment. As long as you deploy it in an  
>> IPv4 only
>> or a dual-stack environment and provide it at least one IPv4-based  
>> resolver,
>> things will work with IPv6.
>
> I think this is wishful thinking.  It was certainly very possible to  
> dual-stack IPX and IP and for a few years people did - but most admins
> hated it - and pressured Novell to adopt IP and abandon IPX.  Novell
> of course did not want to do that as it would unlock customers from
> NetWare - with the result that admins basically gave up on NetWare
> and went to Windows NT Server.  (of course there were other reasons  
> too)
>
> Dual-stack is a problem in the corporate world because you have  
> increased training costs.  Admins switched internal networks to
> IP last time because the Internet pushed them to do it.  Likely
> they will want to wait until significant IPv6 is deployed on the
> Internet before switching internal networks to IPv6 this time, and
> nothing on the Internet is doing the pushing to IPv6, which is why
> I think it will be a longer time coming.
>
I don't really see this as a problem.  Getting desktops over to dual  
stack
really is last priority in my book.  The important thing is getting  
servers
and content providers dual-stacked, because, the first systems that will
get forced to IPv6-only will be those that come on-line after IPv4  
runout.
Likely the bulk of those will be end-users of some form or other.

> Don't forget most corps are on licensing agreements with MS that give
> them rights to run ANY PRIOR version of Windows in addition to the
> corporate one.  Regardless of whether XP is available on pre-loads
> or not, many corps. will be buying Vista systems them loading XP
> images on them for some time.
>
Again, I really don't see this as a problem.  Enterprise Desktop  
deployment
of IPv6 really is last priority and for those enterprises that don't  
undertake
to get it done in time, they are the ones that will suffer the impacts.

Owen