On 07/11/16 20:31, [email protected] wrote:
suckers? you mean those that already have a better understanind of the protocol,
have the required extra monitoring, scripts etc, understand client
behaviours etc - that hardware cycle occurs anyway - and when VM finally get
around
to deploying it, they'll see that most of their traffic as an eyeballs network
will
be IPv6 - all that youtube, google, netflix etc - just needs the client to
actually
have IPv6 connectivit
I agree about the extra experience. I'm not an IPv6 deployment expert,
but I've used IPv6 everyday for 10 years now. I don't know that much,
but I know a lot more than most. There is a big skills gap for V6 on
the on premise side.
This is how I see it.
1) The Zen, SKY and BT rollout will switch on the home users and micro
businesses. (VM and talktalk the same, when it happens). The kind of
people who just use the ISP supplied router. They connect a wifi cable
or read the wifi password off the router and google works. The
business reason is that if they need to CG Nat in future, it can be a
smaller CG Nat. And see content below. v6 will just work for these
people and they won't know the difference.
(I suspect that many 5 to 15 users small business customers have `crappy
internet` which is actually caused by their current basic NAT router not
supporting enough sessions through the NAT. I've seen this in the wild
a few times. And I've had friends ring me to try and help with funny
issues which I'm sure could be port starvation.)
2) Big businesses will switch it on if they have a need. The obvious
need being less port contention at NAT gateways. Or a more routed
network with more diversity. Or fixing conflicts in 1918 space for
internal services. These guys plan their networks and will know what
they are doing.
3) The content providers will roll it out as a way to save address
space. If you are a massive content provider with thousands of servers,
then a chunk can be dual stacked and a chunk can be IPv6 only. If the
content provider happens to be an eye ball network too, then no NAT
between content and eye ball. (I'd be interested to hear from somebody
from SKY (or maybe BT TV stuff) whether this works in practice.)
The Mythic beasts IPv6 hosting system I think is a massively good idea
for smaller content hosters.
4) The deployment lag is going to be the thousands of middle sized
businesses. So above the level of an ISP bundled router, but below the
level of an in-house network team. Somebody with 50 PCs connected to a
Sonicwall firewall. At the level where they want to pay £2.5k plus
installation for security peace of mind.
The current installers of such devices typically have no IPv6 knowledge,
and are frankly scared of IPv6 breaking something. They run away when
they have to type in a funny long number. Plus when something doesn't
work, they don't have the knowledge or experience to fix it.
It will come out in the wash because the people who need IPv6 will find
an willing installer and ditch the appliances with poor V6 support. And
the better installers will realise that one natted IPv4 between 50 busy
office users will not cut the mustard anymore. And the others will
bumble on as before.
****
When I mean port starvation, just look at your desktop now
on linux, run both these commands. (Needs both flavours, even if your
machine is only IPv4 connected. I think it depends how the application
opens the socket)
netstat -n -A inet
netstat -n -A inet6
or
{ netstat -n -A inet6 && netstat -n -A inet; } | wc -l
and -2 from the output.
On windows
netstat -n
And just see how many sockets you have open. Mine says 87 now, and not
really got that many browser tabs open. I've seen consumer firewalls
wimp out at 800 or so sessions .....
--
Tim Bray
[email protected] | +44 7966 479015 | http://www.kooky.org
Huddersfield, UK
