On 10/5/19 12:06 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> writes:
IPv6 deployment in your network means cutting your NAT expense in
half. More, as more sites deploy.
There's no fungable or measureable "NAT expense". NAT generally saves
money. Look at the container market for one recent example.
If you have a dedicated box or service card for NAT, you have a specific
NAT expense. If you can buy a smaller box for half the cost, you've
saved a specific amount of money. I know of mobile carriers who NATted
every Internet connection in IPv4, and have halved their capital expense
on NAT.
IPv6 deployment in your network might mean you can sell some of your
IPv4 addresses, a clever way I've seen to fund the transition.
That I agree with. But I see no sign anyone is actually doing that. It's
saner to horde at the moment.
I've had inquiries along these lines, and written proposals.
IPv6 deployment on your web site means improving your page load time,
and therefore SEO, and therefore revenue. At NANOG I showed quotes
that IPv6 increases revenue by 0.2%-7%.[1]
BS. Happy eyeballs costs time.
Here's my assessment: https://www.retevia.net/why-is-ipv6-faster/
The cost to deploy IPv6 is not high: it's mostly labor, and people who
BS. It needs to be implemented first in a deployable state.
"Deployable"? It's been deployed by the millions. Everyone who's done it
says it was mostly labor.
complain that there's no training are ignoring the hundreds of
tutorials, books, articles, videos, and web sites available to them
for free, not to mention the thousands of friendly engineers.
To everyone who sees a high cost, I ask whether you know the value of
NAT reduction and web site speed (and avoiding buying addresses, or
I note that port exaustion is a real thing on ipv4 networks today that
more should measure. In one recent set of "coffee shop tests", I had an
over 30% initial syn failure rate. I don't know why (we were also
testing ecn) at the moment, but that was a shocking number.
ipv4 dns with udp was already using up a lot of udp port space.
with quic eating up a lot of udp more, I'm not happy.
JUST deploying dns over IPv6 as I did
Interesting!
selling addresses), in $LOCAL_CURRENCY, so you can evaluate every
obstacle you might encounter. For instance, "Our web conferencing
doesn't support IPv6, and it'll cost us $9,000 a year to change. But
IPv6 will save us $30,000." The decision is easy.
That last number is pure BS. It's not a single cost. It's that last
dangling set of apps that can't be converted to ipv6 that's the infinite
cost.
I'm not sure what you're calling "BS." Obviously $30,000 was a made-up
number for the example. I don't know what "dangling set of apps" you
mean that can't be converted, especially in the context of "How much
would it cost to add IPv6 support?"
In another message on this thread I noted that small ISPs are squeezed
between CPE and IPv4 purchases. They can't get CPE that supports IPv6,
or that supports MAP or 464xlat, because they don't buy enough, so
they have to pay to buy addresses.
They can't get cheap CPE that has those features. ALL that code runs
great in openwrt.
And ipv4 addresses are needed until ipv6 hits 100% deployment.
Fewer IPv4 addresses are needed in the context of MAP or 464xlat.
That's easily solved by collective
action: 100 small ISPs can get the features they want (at a better
discount) than one acting alone.
Great. Is there an ISP association trying to do that already?
Not that I know of. If there's interest, I'll support, maybe organize.
Lee
