On 22/05/2020 14:23, Paul Bone wrote:
>I am tempted to argue that anybody without a public IP is not actually
>being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".
>
>So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
>"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet
>"connection".
Personally, I feel this is just semantics - whether you call it a
connection or access, it still does the same thing - gives people
access to resources on the internet. And I would also suggest that the
vast majority of users (even more so with cloud services becoming more
and more prevalent), the actual method used for access can be
particularly irrelevant as long as the service is visible to the user.
You completely miss the point.
Internet access is about access from the Internet to the people as well.
Internet connection is the bit that gives people access to resources on
the Internet.
I've tested several CPE whose call home to mama configuration scripts
get blackholed - particularly on mobile networks.
I am currently building a new network for a small ISP and we are going
to be running IPv6 only services with DNS64/NAT64 as much as possible,
but at this stage we still do require some public IPv4 for business
with on-prem solutions.
That's worth discussion - maybe at RIPE NCC?
The original IPv6 transition required loads of v4 as you probably know
well but by 2008 it was clear that was not going to be possible so IETF
had a rethink on transition. That's when the NAT wars turned into CGNAT
horror.
Google are already offering public DNS64 so it should not be that
difficult for ISPs to implement IPv6 only services going forwards -
particularly (as Paul Mansfield pointed out) many ISPs are already
offering dual-stack solutions.
dependency alert? How will that work out?
Going IPv6 only forces the end users to move to IPv6 which appears to
be the biggest hurdle to overcome.
And whilst some on here seem to think that ridiculing peoples opinions
and suggestions is acceptable, I think that Paul (Mansfield) has made
a valid suggestion that deserves to be discussed in an adult manner.
yup.
C
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 14:09, Christian <c...@firsthand.net
<mailto:c...@firsthand.net>> wrote:
Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please
note)
have to have a public IP provided that is stable and are able to
initiate and respond to service requests (act as host/p2p) as of
today.
Would we be able to buy IPv4 Internet access today ?
I am tempted to argue that anybody without a public IP is not
actually
being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".
So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to
Internet
"connection".
That might also help drive IPv6 as it is by far the cheapest and
simplest way to provide Internet access rather than just connection.
There are of course various stools between those armchair definitions
but the point is - Industry and users should drive towards IPv6
everywhere. Internet Access should be a clear offer in the market
where
you actually are an Internaut not mediated by CGNATs and goodness
knows
what else. Anything less connected than Access should be distinctly
defined so the market understands the offerings and can make like for
like comparisons.
It also might help drive a distinction away from the lowest common
commodity denominator pricing model we see.
.0001c
Christian
On 19/05/2020 11:09, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> Here's a thought.
> Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
> connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
> support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on
either. ISPs
> can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
> consumers, who can't implement their own solution.
>
> I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply
causes
> more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
> deadline nothing ever finishes!
>
>
> * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as
BT and Sky.
>
> I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
> somewhat silent on this ;-)
>
--
Paul Bone
Network Consultant
PMB Technology
