[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Steve Bertrand]

Chris Grundemann wrote:
> 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.  

Even though I'm but a shadow in the ISP world, we're small, and I only
have one level of management above me, I can't forsee this going over
well with ANY size ISP:

- sir, we're going to lower prices for these users by $x/month
- 'why?'
- because they have IPv6 only
- 'does that save us money on bandwidth?'
- no
- 'does it save us money on our v4 allocation fees?'
- no
- 'so we're giving less value for less money, but higher engineering costs'
- yes

I can understand that in the larger orgs, policy matters and rules have
to be followed. Where I forsee change happening, is at the smaller orgs
like myself, where the engineers/ops have complete control of the
network with little/no policy, and can 'force migrate' their users to
dual-stack (at least offer it with their access).

Much like the economy... the small businesses (in aggregate) generally
have the largest impact. The big boys are already migrating. We need
more of the small guys like myself to do so. Show the big boys that we
are ready, and that we are supporting their migration. Rally the troops,
so to speak. (no, I'm not a 'fanatic', btw...)

Steve

ps. and fwiw, push forward. The protocol 'bikeshed' stuff should be left
to the IETF. There are too many people making complaints. Let's just
implement, and show that we're implementing.