[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[Davis, Terry L]

Ted

OS/2 isn't really a good example; I supported some of that for years.  IBM tried to make "windows" for the enterprise with enterprise bells and whistles; it was to expensive for the masses and you had to be a pretty darn good sys-adim to set it up.  Or maybe it is a good example of what we did with v6?

As to HDTV, the USG provided a cheap shim to let folks decide on their own when to buy an HDTV.  In the case of v6, we forgot the shim entirely; and $40 per app would be really good cheap shim even though we have two or more orders of magnitude of v4 apps to convert now than legacy TV's.

I agree we can probably extend the runout some few number of years; my concern remains that all the new apps are still being written mostly without any v6 built in support for future conversion.

Take care
Terry
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 2:23 PM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
> 
> Davis, Terry L wrote:
> > I've been a big supporter of IPv6 for a decade now since I 
> was in the
> > FTTH business for awhile in 2000-2001.  Industry has spent an
> > enormous amount in developing it both in network and in the end
> > systems.  And I still feel it has huge potentials to allow us to
> > improve the Internet.
> > 
> > But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end of IPv4
> > space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely 
> crawling forward
> > in deployments. It's not going into greenfields, startups, etc.  It
> > is still hard to find native v6 transport.  I don't know of a v6
> > network anywhere approaching even approaching 100,000 
> systems (I hope
> > I'm wrong!) on the globe.
> > 
> > Yea I finally realized in doing my Master's paper a couple 
> years back
> > that we had really screwed up by not defining a native way to allow
> > v4 to v6 communications.
> 
> Not true.  I used to run OS/2.  Remember that?  OS/2 Warp?
> 
> Well let me tell you something about transitions.  IBM knocked 
> themselves out adding seamless windows support into OS/2 Warp.
> They really wanted to be able to say that Warp ran Windows
> better than Windows does.  And they succeeded so well that
> their software partners - like DeScribe - who for years ONLY
> produced OS/2 versions of software, ended up going out of
> business because all the Warp users out there simply used
> their legacy Windows applications under OS/2 and never bothered
> switching to OS/2 apps.  Why would they, when Windows apps worked so 
> well under OS/2?
> 
> Some things call for backwards-compatibility.  Some things instead
> call for making it very painful for the customers so that they are
> forced to spend money to upgrade - because their upgrades are for
> the greater good of the community.  The customers who refuse to
> upgrade are then cast-aside, they are winnowed out.  It may seem
> unfair - but to this day there's still people out there who have
> refused to give up their Commodore 64's and buy PCs.  That is
> just a fact of life with change.  Some people refuse to accept it
> and will just continue on with what they know - until they are
> among a small minority, and then they die of old age.
> 
> Look at the HDTV business.  We all know the US Government 
> gave everyone
> free converter boxes to get their crappy old TV sets to work
> on HD.  But, the US Government DID NOT pay for anyone to get a
> brand new HDTV UHF antenna, even though millions of people were
> running set-top rabbit ears, or VHF antennas on the top of their
> roofs.   And those millions of people were basically told you
> go spend $35 on a new Channel Master UHF antenna and find some
> handyman to climb around on the top of your roof and install it.
> We aren't going to make the signal backwards compatible to 
> your old VHF 
> antenna because we know damn well you wouldn't lift a finger 
> to replace 
> your antenna.
> 
> We know that customers aren't going to spend money unless they
> have to.  Sometimes you just gotta be a hard-ass and don't give
> them a choice to NOT spend the money.  This is one of those times.
> 
> > As is, you basically have to open every v4
> > app and re-write it to utilize v6;
> 
> correct
> 
> > none of the existing transition
> > technologies cover all the v4 to v6 communications scenarios.  With
> > this much installed v4, the cost of opening every existing app to
> > change it to be dual-stacked is staggering.
> >
> 
> That doesn't matter.  All of those apps your talking about are
> going to be obsolete in 20 years and replaced by new versions so
> that staggering cost is going to be spent either way.
> 
> > We can argue endlessly about the risks of opening v6 address
> > allocation policy but in the end, if we cannot get the Internet
> > developers to utilize it, all the investment of the IT and comm
> > vendors will be lost.  One of the alternatives to IPv6 will win (geo
> > routing, 5th octet, something-out-of-the-blue, etc) and all that
> > investment in IPv6 and its potential enhancements to the Internet
> > will be lost to us.
> > 
> 
> If you really think that an alternative to IPv6 has a chance then
> where are all those startup software companies writing to one of
> those alternative standards?  Why isn't Microsoft pushing one of
> those?
> 
> out-of-the-blue laboratory curiosities implemented on Linux just
> aren't going to make any difference.  The future is IPv6 and
> all the big players are betting on it, and the economic
> situation in the world right now is not such that anyone is
> going to put any real money into an alternative.
> 
> The question isn't whether it's going to be IPv6 vs some kludgy
> IPv4 alternative.  The question is going to be how far can we
> stretch the IPv4 that we have.
> 
> It's been observed before on this list that most large networks
> have very "loose" allocations.  For example the standard customer
> static IPv4 allocation is a /29 and a /30 on a point-to-point link to 
> that customer.  In reality it could be a /30 and unnumbered on the
> point-to-point link since it's almost a given that all of
> the customers getting /29's are only using a single number.
> And if you want to force the end user to use a /32 you can
> run PPP right to their router.
> 
> I think most established ISP's are aware of this and figure they can 
> self-generate IPv4 for 3-5 years post-runout.  Their feeling is
> why should I kill myself trying to kick my peers asses
> to get them running IPv6 natively, when I can do nothing and allow
> all the deep-pocket startup ISP's out there who are flush with
> VC funding and have no IPv4 stored up, to beat my peers for me.  Then 
> once my peers are IPv6 native, I'll just switch it on and be gold.
> It kind of sucks for the new guy on the block, but that is also
> a normal characteristic of established markets.
> 
> Ted
>