> -----Original Message----- > From: rrg-boun...@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] On Behalf Of > Patrick Frejborg > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:03 AM > To: George, Wes E [NTK] > Cc: RRG; Robin Whittle > Subject: Re: [rrg] rrg-design-goals-04 - we should write something much > better
> Hi Wes, > > think you are referring to my I-D and thus I feel an obligation to > response. > [WES] well, I was being more general, but I do appreciate your response. > - but how to do the transition from IPv4 and where are the incentives > to move from IPv4 to IPv6 from e.g. enterprises point of view? Moving > to IPv6 is a forklift upgrade, enterprises' homegrown or customized > applications needs to be ported and that is very expensive. [WES] The concept of IPv6 = forklift upgrade and therefore won't happen is FUD, pure and simple. Yes, there will be equipment replacements required, and yes some kit will *never* support IPv6. But ultimately, there is a period in time after which most equipment purchased will support IPv6. In my own network, I had to wait 2 years for a lot of our existing EOL hardware to be replaced for other reasons (because it was out of memory or didn't support IPv4 features we needed). Organically, as the new hardware was deployed, I had support for IPv6, and didn't have to spend a bunch of money forklift upgrading my network to get it. So it's about timing - waiting for the technology refresh that is going to happen independently of IPv6. (n.b. I do realize that this is splitting hairs, but it makes a difference because it's taking advantage of an investment we had to make anyway instead of forcing a new one for something that doesn't generate much in the way of incremental revenue) As I said in my message to Noel, IPv6 is a foregone conclusion. IPv4 doesn't scale to all of the things for which we need to have IP addresses today, let alone in the future, except with NAT. NAT by nature, especially multiple layers as in NAT444 makes IPv4 a second-class citizen. This is not to say that IPv4 is going to go away anytime soon, but what you're talking about is a long-tail problem. Right now, we have to make any IPv6-only things out there talk to the IPv4-only internet because that's the majority, so we either do NAT64 or run them dual-stack. In another year or two, enough things will be dual-stack that IPv6 only connectivity won't be a major issue, especially within certain communities of interest. And similar to when we started sticking gateways in front of SNA implementations to make them speak TCP/IP, we'll stick gateways in front of a rapidly shrinking pile of old kit with obsolete IPv4-only network stacks so that they can reach the rest of the IPv6 world. > But I think you will not stop to sell IPv4 > based services within 3-6 months - it seems that the ISPs are forced > to deploy Carrier Grade NAT solutions (unfortunately), simply because > of the customer demand. The IPv4 community is very large and too large > to be ignored by any service provider (carrier or content) [WES] No, we're not going to stop supporting IPv4 before it makes sense to do so. However, CGN and its variants are stopgap measures until IPv6 support is there, not a means to indefinitely prolong IPv4. They don't scale, they don't work with every application, and the less of them that we have to use, the better. As I've been telling people who cling to legacy IPv4-only installed base as a reason to focus on CGN or other IPv4 extension methods as anything but a temporary, necessary evil - how long is it really acceptable to assume that obsolete equipment should be able to connect to the network as it evolves? In the US, we have a lot of obsolete mobile phones (including some non-replaceable embedded OnStar modules in cars) that have no network to talk to because there is no longer an analog GSM network, we have a bunch of analog TVs that can't get signal with rabbit ears anymore, etc. I don't understand why we continually try to shield end users from the unfortunate concept that their kit does eventually become obsolete and need to be upgraded to continue providing the same service. Even worse, we try to force network providers to invest in solutions to perpetuate this, thereby shifting the cost. > thus there will be no killer application for IPv6, [WES] Disagree. Fully functional end-to-end Internet is IPv6's killer application. While it's true that your average home broadband user, and even many enterprises really don't care whether their service is delivered over IPv4, IPv6, or Avian Carrier, they do want it to work. And based on what I'm seeing from ISPs who have been testing things like NAT444, the increasingly subpar service that IPv4 will provide as we run out of addresses will serve as an incentive to move to IPv6, even if it means that they have to buy a new widget to do it. >startups will not get > funding if they deploy solutions only for IPv6. [WES] Again, FUD. Turned the other way, if they develop only for IPv4, I wouldn't fund them because they have no viable business plan for long-term growth. I've been hearing that the US may start requiring companies to include IPv6 readiness in their business risk in their 10K filings, underscoring the notion that IPv6 is a requirement if you want to have a business that grows. Yes, it may not make sense for the next Facebook to be IPv6 only today, but definitely dual-stack, and there are plenty of places where IPv6-only does make sense, and that will continue to increase. > > if I have > an IPv4 address (or multi-homed solution) and can be part of the IPv4 > community, why should I care and invest in technology that will do no > good for me - especially with all the financial problems in the old > economies. [WES] See above regarding killer app. I concede that enterprises who already have enough IPv4 space may be slow to adopt IPv6 in their enterprise by comparison to the growth markets, but they have people who want to be able to work from home on a VPN, or work via a wireless device. You sure that's going to work through NAT444? Any business that wants to communicate with China, India, Africa, etc, or provide services in the smart grid/Machine2Machine environment, or the mobile network should be implementing IPv6. One of the primary deployments of LTE in the US *requires* IPv6, even for internal services like IMS, and IPv4 is only used when necessary. Another mobile carrier in the US has publicly stated several times at places like NANOG and IETF mailing lists - "My devices are going IPv6-only. I'm going to be running NAT64 to reach IPv4 content. So you can either support IPv6, or I'll support it for you. Wouldn't you rather have control of how your service performs towards my customers?" And I think our colleagues in Beijing were quite clear about China's plans for IPv6. Should I go on? Wes George ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
