Matthew, You can be part of the solution or part of the sarcasm.
-mel via cell > On Jul 5, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at> wrote: > >> On 7/4/2015 5:09 AM, Josh Moore wrote: >> Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE. >> Consider the following: >> >> An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with >> the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardless >> of the depletion of the IPv4 space. > > Admirable goal. > >> Current dual stack best practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and >> IPv6 to every CPE. > > That's what "dual stack" means, yes. > >> If this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help >> with the v4 address depletion crisis? > > Well, you dual-stacked your subscribers about 5-8 years ago, and about 3-5 > years ago we're basically done moving all content they might wish to access > to IPv6 as well. So about a year ago, you've been able to offer an IPv6-only > product that actually works just fine... and you charge extra for IPv4 (which > most people don't want/need at this point) > >> Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4 compatibility. > > Well,... because you and every other ISP dual-stacked over 5 years ago, and > the transition is just about done, I wouldn't call it "many" at this point. > >> Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about applications that need >> direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? > > By now, there aren't any such applications in wide use. A few legacy things > that couldn't be updated, sure, and for those you can still offer IPv4 > addresses and access to the few people willing to pay extra for that. > >> It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient >> IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. > > That's not needed, because with everyone on IPv6, there's more than enough > IPv4 space available for you... and if you need to buy some, it is almost > worthless, so the prices are near zero. > >> My question is this: What, if any, solutions like this exist? > > Nobody bothered to build sharing strategies because it was clear that it > wouldn't be needed as IPv6 deployment ramped up over the last decade. > >> If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? What would the >> overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be? > > Just continue the dual-stack approach for those who need it, as you've been > doing for 5+ years. For the rest, IPv4 is historic. > >> >> Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and >> while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; I >> don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate >> issue: IPv4 depletion. > > Fortunately, the recent ARIN announcement is of no real concern, because you > and everyone else moved to a nearly 100% IPv6 Internet years ago. > > Matthew Kaufman >
