[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 7/31/2010 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Not sure why you think IPv6 is either infeasible or incorrect, given the
>>> large deployments actually operating with it.
>>
>> The reasons IPv6 is currently infeasible for the overwhelming majority
>> have been gone over in detail and at length many times in this forum.
>> Anyone following these threads and still claiming to be "not sure" of the
>> impediments is either unsure by choice or playing rhetorical games.  The
>> rest of the connected world understands the drawbacks as the lack of IPv6
>> uptake over the past decade clearly illustrates.
>
>
> I didn't say I was unsure of the impediments. I said I was unsure why you
> thought IPv6 was infeasible (it isn't) or incorrect (that's such a subjective
> term in this context).
>
> However, since you choose not to answer here, I'll go based on your
> previous statements:
>
> The lack of uptake for most people has little to do with the reasons you
> have stated in the past.
>
> The primary cause for lack of IPv6 uptake is quite simple... Organizational
> Inertia. Other phrases that describe this commonly include:
> 	"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
> 	"It's not a priority yet."
>
> Lack of NAT really isn't a barrier to anyone who takes the time to actually
> understand IPv6.
>
> Address hiding can be accomplished quite easily by using privacy
> address extensions as described in RFCs 3041 and 4941.
>
> If you're worried about avoiding renumbering when you switch providers,
> the answer is quite simple... Pick two.
>
> Connect to two providers and apply for your space directly from ARIN.
> You can get a /48 (or larger if you need) for less than the cost of a
> new medium-large NAT gateway as a one-time fee and a mere $100/year
> thereafter.
>
> This avoids all those pesky source address selection problems, too.
>

There's no question that it's quite possible to deploy and use IPv6.
Unfortunately the largest wart IMHO is the lack of a standard for
distributing DNS server IP addresses via auto assignment.  You
take the position that NAT is awful, I find DHCPv6 to be far worse.

> Oh, and the adoption of IPv6 is clearly accelerating at this time. My bet
> is it will continue to do so and that we'll see pretty wide-spread deployment
> in less than 2 years, with near ubiquity in about 4-5 years.

I disagree unless you mean near ubiquity on the provider side.  It's 
going to be many, many years before the end-users start using it even
though their provider offers it.

> I also think that
> the post-runout IPv4 world is going to create a great deal of pressure to
> deprecate IPv4 much sooner than most people think

I hope this is true.

> There are far too many organizations running IPv6 for me to believe that
> it cannot be deployed.
>

And how many of those orgs are IPv6 ONLY?

>
> Yes, IPv6 requires education. No, there are no insurmountable
> problems remaining in IPv6. Yes, it has some warts and some
> things that could have been done better. However, it's no worse
> than IPv4, and, the lack of NAT makes it quite a bit better in many
> ways.
>

Please keep in mind that people who do not have experience with
enterprise networks, who are coming at this from a small company
perspective, where everyone is single-homed, simply do not understand
the difficulties that NAT introduces to multi-site WANs.  NAT
is the "poor man's firewall" to the single-homers and it is
deployed on millions of residential CPEs and works well on most of
them, so continuing to harp on how the lack of NAT is a benefit
to IPv6 goes completely over many people's heads.

Ted