[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Chris Grundemann]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 14:32, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>
>
> Lee Dilkie wrote:
>>
>> My comment on the subject, repeated from last year.
>>
>> The only proper way forward is dual stack and the faster we achieve some
>> magic number (80%?) of dual stack penetration, the faster we can roll
>> out v6 only.
>>
>>
>
> Its not the proper way forward. It is the theoretically ideal way forward
> (albeit at 100%). It is also the way forward that hasnt gotten enough
> momentum yet and is uncertain that it will in time, unaided. Waiting for 80%
> penetration before depletion is very likely overly optimistic, probably
> because real uptake of IPv6 depends on depletion. Even then, it is hardly
> likely it will occur in any meaningfully quick fashion.
>
> Here is the oft-quoted chicken and egg problem in its expanded form.
>
> Why would any existing user of IPv4 need to add dual stack to IPv6?
>
> To access the IPv6 only users.
>
> Why would anybody ever be publicly accessible only via IPv6?
>
> Because they cant get any IPv4.
>
> Who is going to put up with that?
>
> Only people who dont mind waiting for large percentages of the internet to
> decide it is worth getting IPv6 to talk to them.
>
> What will the rest do?
>
> Beg borrow and steal to get IPv4.
>
> Rinse, Repeat.
>
> The  waiting for dual stack to reach critical mass plan is proceeding too
> slowly, calling into doubt whether it is smart to continue waiting on it.
>
> Due to address shortage, continuing with waiting for dual stacking to reach
> critical is going to require more and more NAT, and more and more wrangling
> over past inefficiencies. Which is bad, even as it may become more and more
> necessary.
>
> Furthermore, as a plan formula it sucks. We have to invest 80% of the effort
> to get the 20% payoff? The 80 20 rule is supposed to work in the other way.
>
> If the plan was to wait until 20% of the internet was dual stack and then
> the rest would "automatically" follow and cause IPv6 only to be practical,
> now thats more achievable, but still unlikely.

I don't think it depends on a % of everyone but rather on the right
groups leading.  If a significant amount of content (facebook,
youtube, itunes, major news sites and what have you) was dual-stacked,
that could make at least residential / home-use IPv6 only service
practical for at least some users, especially if it was offered at a
reduced cost.  That opens the door and starts the ball rolling.  I am
not going to say that we will (or even can) reach 100% IPv6
penetration before we run out of available IPv4 in that manner but I
am not positive that it is out of reach yet either...

~Chris

>
>> One good way for organizations like ARIN to help with dual stack is to
>> simply give out v6 addresses, free, to all current v4 address holders
>>
>
> Which they do for the most part. To date the only significant complaints I
> have seen have been regarding those who arent IPv4 holders or with the
> single prefix policy.
>>
>> and encourage them to roll it out. Or add a stick like "here's your free
>> v6, you have x years to roll out v6 to your customers or you loose your
>> v4"... not that I favour the stick, just tossing it out.
>>
>
> ARIN is not in the position to be waving sticks at people for things like
> this, and I think they know that.
>
> And where is the carrot in your plan?
>>
>> {flame proof underwear on}
>>
>> -lee
>>
>>
>>
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>




-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org