> On Sep 12, 2021, at 15:37 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@chl.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2021, at 14:02 , Michel Py <mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>>>> I know you don’t like that answer because for some reason, you prefer the
>>>> ongoing pain of IPv4 vs. the small short-term pain of deploying IPv6, but
>>>> there it is.
>>> What you call short-term is 20 years and counting. I eliminated IPX in one
>>> year, and it was the #1 protocol at the time. For the last 20 years, I have
>>> heard that IPv6 would become the dominant protocol in 2 years. For the last
>>> TWENTY years.
>> You’re mischaracterizing my statement a bit here.
>>
>> With regards to pain, anyone forced to maintain IPv4 on a network with any
>> sort of ongoing growth is suffering an ever increasing amount of pain and
>> costs.
>>
>> OTOH, once you have deployed IPv6 on a similar network, IPv6 is considerably
>> less painful and life would be much better if you could turn off IPv4 at
>> that point. IPv4 is the major source of ongoing pain.
>
> And its the protocol you actually need to use.
Less and less every day, actually. I can count on one hand the number of things
I still need IPv4 for these days:
Amazon.com (sadly no viable alternatives)
Payment Processors (though some show signs of this changing in the next
year or two, so some hope here)
Amplifiers (LAN only)
My HMO (though they appear to be working on this, I should check in
with Sylvia to see if there’s hope on the horizon)
Likely a small handful of other things I don’t regularly think about.
A few Chamberlain MyQ controlled things in my house.
Philips Hue (though I’m working on an IPv6 Zigbee bridge that will
support LightLink generically).
Sunrun might get upset if I turned off IPv4, but I’d regard that as their
problem, not mine.
>>>> I use more. Are you going to claim that my choice not to NAT is somehow
>>>> invalid?
>>> In an IPv4 world, yes. It's irresponsible.
>> That’s sort of like saying that people who bought single-family houses in
>> urban areas should be forced into high density housing because in an urban
>> area, it’s irresponsible to have a single-family house with a yard.
>>
>> I don’t buy the argument in either case.
>
> I am with you on this. Yes. its theoretically "irresponsible" but that is no
> justification to be high handed.
I have trouble with the idea that someone continuing to do what they do with
their land is somehow irresponsible because a bunch of other people who came
later feel somehow entitled.
>>>> You’ve admitted that there are valid reasons for at least 6 addresses per
>>>> household.
>>> No. This setup is a hodge-podge that has no reason to be. In all of my
>>> branches all across the USA, I use only one IP and the eight or sixteen
>>> that come automatically are wasted. Intentionally.
>> Even if you consider one address per site, the math still works out that
>> IPv4 comes up short when you combine the number of households with the
>> number of businesses and then add in infrastructure, servers, etc.
>
> The fraction of households that actually care enough about guip + larger
> fraction of businesses/services might actually still work out mathwise.
Only if you assume that everyone will accept second class citizenry in
perpetuity and that there isn’t a need/desire for applications that would be
enabled by restoring the end-to-end model.
I do not accept either of these assumptions and I resent those standing in the
way of moving forward with these capabilities. Probably at least as much as you
resent those allegedly standing in the way of 240/4 being used as RFC-1918
space.
> Infrastructure does not count, that it consumes guip is a convenience in more
> cases than not.
We can agree to disagree on this one. Amusingly, that statement is more true of
IPv6 than of IPv4.
> Servers can be consolidated, again convenience.
We can agree to disagree on this one, too… Not every server is a Virtual Web
host. Some things still like unique port numbers.
Email comes to mind.
>>>> ISDN was quite widely deployed and, in fact, is still in widespread use,
>>>> just not for data for the most part.
>>> Oh ? where ? I did have a few PRIs at $job[-1], but there were local to my
>>> closet; the back end was SIP.
>> There are a LOT of PBXs that interconnect with their ILEC or other Telco via
>> ISDN PRI. VOIP has not completely supplanted it just yet.
>
> I believe the original point was referencing the fact that ISDN was intended
> to replace POTS, nationally. Instead it found a solid niche role among
> providers and enterprises for a time, currently eroding. I do not think you
> prefer that narrative for IPv6.
No, that narrative is much better suited for IPv4, as it has replaced NCP for
the last 30+ years, and is on a relatively similar timeline to ISDN, actually.
>>> For a variety of reasons, it was easier to communicate with legacy
>>> equipment with PRI trunks, but they came out of an Asterisk server; was a
>>> lot cheaper to buy a few Quad-PRI PCI express cards than upgrading a legacy
>>> system.
>> In many cases, that’s still true, but instead of bothering with the Asterisk
>> server, they are simply doing PRI with the Telco.
>>
> Anyone doing that feel free to contact somebody willing to do that with you
> over sip, you will get redundancy and flexibility and its almost always a
> whole lot cheaper.
In my experience, this varies greatly depending on the Telco in question.
Owen
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
