[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Chris Engel wrote:

>>> multilayer NAT. So to me the need for a global transition to IPv6
>>> remains inevitable no matter what happens in the IPv4 number resources
>>> market. IPv4 is just too small no matter how efficiently the world
>>> learns to use it. Perhaps some investors (and perhaps some speculators)
>>> would be well served by lengthening the lifetime of IPv4 by a few more
>>> years,
>> 
>> These kinds of comments show a certain lack of sensitivity to the needs of
>> actual network operators. Given the pace of the IPv6 transition, and the fact
>> that even those who migrate must use some combination of NAT and IPv4 to
>> remain compatible with most of the internet, we have no choice but to
>> lengthen the lifetime of IPv4.
>> No one knows how long that period will be. Do you? If you've received some
>> divine illumination on that score, by all means publish it. If you are just
>> evangelizing IPv6, spare us, we've heard it 100 times before.
>> 
>>> but the bigger the IPv4 network gets the harder it will be to
>>> pull it through the knothole of the IPv6 transition.
>> 
>> Since IPv6 migration REQUIRES a larger IPv4 network during the dual stacking
>> period of transition, this is a pretty "interesting" observation
>> 
>>> In summary, ARIN has a transfer policy and ARIN stands ready to record
>>> the results of private party transactions in IPv4 numbering resources.
>> 
>> That's good to hear.
>> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that there are some here who evangelize on the virtues of IPv6. It's no surprise since the focus of the list is about address utilization and IPv6 does solve that problem admirably. For many of us who's engagement with IT is broader then just address utilization, IPv6 comes with a whole host of problems in other areas that make it undesirable. Which is why you have seen alot of hesitation in adoption of it. I think what you are observing here is a healthy dose of "Lets make it

Not as undesirable as the coming devolution of IPv4...

The simple reality is that IPv6 really isn't significantly worse than IPv4 in any regard. Yes, there are areas where IPv6 will require some adaptation. Yes, there are some areas where IPv6 provides somewhat different feature sets which will require some changes to business practices. Yes, there are some new vulnerabilities in IPv6 (though there are also some IPv4 security vulnerabilities that are not present in IPv6). However, the simple reality is that the biggest single drawback to IPv6 is the cost of deployment in terms of time, staff training, human resources, and possibly hardware/software upgrades. The next biggest drawback is the number of vendors and systems that have failed to properly prepare and provide IPv6 capable solutions.

The good news is that the vendor problem space is actually shrinking pretty rapidly at this point.

> someone else's headache." Those who primarily aren't effected by the negatives IPv6 brings with it are hoping to see a stake driven through the heart of IPv4 so that v6 becomes more useful to them and they don't have to continue to deal with the headaches that limited address space under IPv4 (and some of the measures taken to extend it) cause them and can move on to an environment that is more beneficial to them. Those of us for whom IPv6 is a "crap-tastic" solution are hoping to exte
> nd the useful life of IPv4 as much as possible so we can avoid dealing with the problems IPv6 will bring (and hopefully find that some of those problems will be better addressed by the time we need to bring it on board). Also, of course, on both sides of the aisle you have people with monetary interests tied up in the issue, whether it's selling IPv6 solutions or hoping to invest in an IPv4 address market. So it goes.
> 

Perhaps, instead, those who see the coming degradation of IPv4 capabilities and the limitations, costs, damage, and dysfunction that will impose realize that we can either move forward with IPv6 and allow IPv4 to wane naturally with a viable alternative in place, or, we can continue on the present path and wait for the internet to suffer an explosive collision with the coming wall. I'm not trying to make it someone else's headache, I'm trying to help others arrive where I have already been. I already live a dual-stack life every day. It's been a relatively painless experience, actually.

Care to point out exactly what these huge detriments you see in IPv6 are? Why you say it is "crap-tastic"? What are these so-called problems IPv6 will bring?

It's not like we're trying to avoid addressing the negatives in IPv6, but, I really don't see anything that is bad enough to warrant your above characterization.

> I think that's the real disconnect. This list is primarily concerned with address resource policy. From the perspective of address policy, IPv6 is pretty much a no brainer as it DOES solve the resource shortage issue admirably. From almost every other perspective, IPv6 stinks on ice and for those of us who would have to deal the problems it presents, it's a no brainer to try to extend the useful life on IPv4 as much as possible.  
> 

Speaking as an end-user who is fortunate enough to have enough address space in both address families, I'd much rather have IPv6 than have to suffer through NAT, let alone the various forms of NAT++ that are coming (IVI, DS-Lite, 6RD, NAT64, NAT444, NAT4444, NAT44444444444..., etc.).

Owen