Well, we can step the standard up to 100% dual stack compliance, but I
doubt we can get consensus on that now. In a few years and a new draft,
maybe we can do it then.
I see it as baby steps to the goal of 100% IPv6.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
If you want to make meaningful progress, you’re talking about “deploying enough
IPv6 to not need another IPv4 block”: that requires either building something
to be IPv6-only, or deploying enough IPv6 to reduce the size of the required
NAT pool for your remaining IPv4 traffic. Both of those are hard and expensive
on an enterprise network, so most enterprises have opted to “buy” so far.
Sure, meeting the “compliance” bar in this draft policy is easy. But that’s
because it accomplishes approximately nothing.
Scott
On Nov 11, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2019, at 10:12, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote:
I think you underestimate the complexity of enterprise networking, and the
relative lack of skill of the folks managing most enterprise networks, largely
due to the fact that they can't enforce at-scale standardization as consumer
networks do (so they can't just hire a small number of software architects to
manage an entire network via automation).
I know one can turn on IPv6 along side IPv4 and gradually move stuff across to
supporting
both IPv4 and IPv6. I know that HTTP, SMTP and DNS servers have supported IPv6
for over
2 decades. DHCP servers have supported IPv6 nearly as long. I know firewalls
have supported
IPv6 for over 2 decades now. I know Windows has supported IPv6 since Windows
XP. I know Apple,
Oracle (Sun), VMS, Linux, … have supported IPv6 as long if not longer. I know
turning on IPv6
doesn’t mean turning off IPv4. Most CDN’s support IPv6 these days as well and
you don’t have
to be running IPv6 in house to project a IPv6 presence on the net. Routers
have supported IPv6
for decades as well though not at the $50 mark until recently.
Turning on IPv6 isn’t hard even if most it the plant isn’t using it. The front
office can
definitely use it just like homes use it today. Getting to the state where you
are ready
to go IPv6-only is hard as it requires every piece of equipment to support
IPv6, but don’t
confuse the two.
When it comes down to making a decision about whether to implement IPv6, the decision is usually "build vs. buy" -
"build" a new network, new server infrastructure, etc., vs. "buy" more IPv4 addresses. On residential networks, they
can "build" at a sufficient scale to be cheaper than "buying". On enterprise networks, the "buy" option is
usually cheaper (and far less risky to the revenue-generating portions of the business).
In many cases it is just enable.
There are ways to help change that cost/benefit tradeoff, but they involve
solving hard problems of both the technical and organizational variety. This
policy proposal does nothing to address them.
-Scott
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:36 PM Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually the arrogance of enterprises in not turning on IPv6 is astounding.
Their customers are being forced to share IP addresses not only between their
own machines but between machines from different customers because they can’t
take the simple step of turning on IPv6 on their servers. No one else can
do that but them.
The world ran out if IPv4 address in 1995. Stop gaps have kept IPv4 going since
then and they are getting worse. 20 years to plan to turn on IPv6 and they still
say they need more time. Thats mega arrogance for you.
Mark
On 8 Nov 2019, at 12:08, Michel Py <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jordi,
I'm not sure if this is a love or a war declaration ... below ...
This is war, make no mistake.
In fact, we should aim, as a community (RIRs, IETF, ICANN), to do as much as we
can to start sunseting IPv4 now.
This is why we are at war. In 20 years, you have not yet captured 10% of the
enterprise market and you are talking about sunset ?
Your arrogance is mind-boggling. You are fighting for the survival of IPv6. You
had your shot at it. For 20 years. Now want to kill my ecosystem, I will thrown
anything I have at yours. No matter how dirty it is. No matter how much people
will hate me. Not being nice anymore.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
