RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Frank Bulk - iNAME]

Joel:

Besides the CM and CMTS itself, can the CPE attached to the CM use IPv6 if
the CMTS has the right code to handle IPv6-based DHCP relay?  To be clear,
even if the CMTS doesn't have DOCSIS 3.0 support?  Standing from a distance,
I don't see why IPv6 on the routing piece of the CMTS has to require a
DOCSIS 3.0 blade and/or CM.

Regards,

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:48 AM
To: Mark Newton
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

Mark Newton wrote:

> Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck.
> I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out
> of the box.

Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6.

Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS (line card swap)
before you can leverage it directly on the cable in a consumer environment.

DSL aggregation routers are challenge where again equipment lifecycle
plays in to whether you're in a position to deploy.

> (Billion in Taiwan has a device which they've stamped an "IPv6 Ready"
> sticker onto, but the IPv6 version of the software hasn't left the
> confines of their lab yet)
>
> As far as I've been able to determine, IPv6 SOHO CPE is largely
> vaporware right now.  And lets not even get started on residential
> grade CPE, that doesn't even appear to be on most vendors' radar
> _at all_.  If anything useful is going to happen in this space,
> my guess is that it'll be with custom Linux firmware running on
> a LinkSys blob with no vendor support.
>
>
>   - mark
>
>
> --
> Mark Newton   Email:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W)
> Network Engineer  Email:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  (H)
> Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk:   +61-8-82282999
> "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223
>
>
>
>
>

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Kevin Oberman]

> From: David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> Jamie,
> 
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
> 
> The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is  
> actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have  
> shown).  There are lots of bits and pieces that are necessary for mere  
> mortals to actually use IPv6.
> 
> > The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled  
> > everywhere,
> 
> I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living that while  
> the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or faster than IPv4, doing  
> so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is lacking.   
> What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which I'm told  
> have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being shipped) necessary  
> to do everything core routers are expected to do for IPv6 yet.
> 
> > and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
> 
> I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and  
> Europe are running IPv6 right now?  I'm aware, for example, that NTT  
> is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal  
> transport service not connected to the Internet.  I'm unaware (but  
> would be very interested in hearing about) any service in Asia or  
> Europe that is seeing significant IPv6 traffic.
> 
> > The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the  
> > year.
> 
> I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be "IPv6  
> capable" (whatever that means) by this summer.  If there is a mandate  
> to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the year, people are  
> going to have to get very, very busy very, very quickly.
> 
> > The
> > only bits that are missing right now are the routers and switches at  
> > the
> > edge, and support from transit providers,
> 
> My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are  
> missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant.  What is  
> _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the  
> chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request  
> IPv6.  Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the  
> business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it.  Without  
> infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to  
> deploy content on top of IPv6.
> 
> > and if they're going to keep
> > supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major  
> > player
> > in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen.
> 
> Remember GOSIP?

Oh, boy, do I remember GOSIP. Deja vu, in too many ways.

Just to clarify, the current mandates for US government IPv6
implementation is quite constrained.

1. For some time computer equipment/software had to be IPv6 capable. No
definition of 'capable' and the usual weasel words so that it's not
really hard to ge around, but it move IPv6 up the check-list quite a
ways. 

2. The implementation mandate is restricted to government 'backbone'
networks. That really means that US Government network providers which
connect government facilities need to be capable of running IPv6. Not
end systems, LANS, or any networks within a single facility.

This means DREN, DISA, DOJ, DOI, DOE, etc. networks need to support
IPv6, but networks at a laboratory or military base don't and no end
systems or servers need to do IPv6. It is possible that an infrstructure
support service like DNS, at least for addresses in the external nets,
will need IPv6 support, but not facility servers.

It is likely (nearly certain) that the requirements for IPv6 will expand
to cover facility networks and end systems, but it is not clear that
they will actually require IPv6 user, just capability, though this is
also considered as likely.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751


pgptermTVHS5p.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Bernhard Schmidt]

David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they  
> had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
>
> Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
> Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
>
> No idea how well they support IPv6...

Looked at the manual, the only thing I could find regarding IPv6
connectivity was an option

IP Versions
 * IPv4 Only. This option utilizes IPv4 on the Internet and local
   network
 * Dual-Stack IP. This option utilizes IPv4 over the Internet and IPv4
   and IPv6 on the local network.

No support for native connectivity on the WAN side apparently and no
user-defined tunnels, so my guess is 6to4. Odd that you can manually
specify the LAN IPv6 address, but well. Latest firmware readme talks
about 6to4-only as well.

Apple Airport Extreme can do 6to4 and manual proto-41 at least, the only
other commercial SOHO product I could find that (according to the
data-sheet) supports IPv6 is the Buffalo WZR-AG300NH. No hit in the
(very brief) manual or the knowledge base though, so no idea how far
this support is going.

Best bet is still a WRT54G with OpenWRT :-\

Bernhard

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[David Conrad]

FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they  
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:


Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99

No idea how well they support IPv6...

Regards,
-drc

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

I have an 877m (no wireless):
Vlan1 has an ipv6 address and and ipv6 nd prefix.
All the devices plugged into the ethernet ports find out about IPv6 just 
peachy.


"c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.T1.bin"

(Caveat:  I'm running native dual stack over PPPoE because I can make 
the LNS do what I want)


MMC

Petri Helenius wrote:

Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:


It's not that bad.  You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 
interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a 
BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and 
wired.
That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch 
integrated. (running 12.4T)


Pete


--
Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks
Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999  Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

  "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, 
but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> -Original Message-
> From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:49 PM
> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> Cc: Mohacsi Janos; Matthew Moyle-Croft; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
> 
> Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> >
> > It's not that bad.  You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11
> interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a
> BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and
> wired.
> >
> That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch
> integrated. (running 12.4T)
> 
> Pete


Check out:  http://www.andbobsyouruncle.net and my wiki post on a v6 config.  I 
*think* this has the module you're talking about and is running 
flash:c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.XY.bin.

Cisco 871W (MPC8272) processor (revision 0x200) with 118784K/12288K bytes of 
memory.
Processor board ID FHK1109132B
MPC8272 CPU Rev: Part Number 0xC, Mask Number 0x10
5 FastEthernet interfaces
1 802.11 Radio
128K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.
24576K bytes of processor board System flash (Intel Strataflash)

Regards,

Mike


PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Petri Helenius]

Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:


It's not that bad.  You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired.  
  
That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch 
integrated. (running 12.4T)


Pete

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> >
>  The IPv6 "support" on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's
> not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices.
> But
> it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan
> to
> tunnel to.
> 
> Pete

It's not that bad.  You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the 
FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two 
/64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired.  

Regards,

Mike


PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Petri Helenius]

Mohacsi Janos wrote:





On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

 


Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We 
tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My 
colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices 
they have IPv6 support. However I think these devices are not consumer 
equipments. I would call SO (Small Office) devices. The HO (home 
office) devices are the ~ 50-100 USD devices - you rarely see official 
ipv6 support.


The IPv6 "support" on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's 
not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices. But 
it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan to 
tunnel to.


Pete

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote:


There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday.  However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is 
still primarily a search engine.  How much of the content Google serves up is 
accessible via IPv6?  I might suggest reviewing 
http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi...


Google is still a search engine, but through many of the products they've 
grown in-house (GMail, etc...) and acquired (YouTube, etc...), they 
control a growing amount of content


jms

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[David Conrad]

There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,


True, since yesterday.  However, while I applaud their efforts, Google  
is still primarily a search engine.  How much of the content Google  
serves up is accessible via IPv6?  I might suggest reviewing http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi 
...


Regards,
-drc

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[David Conrad]

Randy,


actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge.  there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user.  they just want their mtv, and do  
not

care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.


I agree.  What I meant was that customers will demand content and  
since that content is available (largely exclusively) over IPv4, it  
will be difficult to make the business case to deploy IPv6.



it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4
squeeze and need to seek alternatives.  and, imiho, ipv6 is the
preferable alternative we have today.


I can see a case being made for converting an ISP's network to IPv6- 
only with edges (both customer facing as well as core facing, the  
latter being the tricky bit) that take v4 packets and tunnel them  
across the v6 infrastructure since the ISP would then be unconstrained  
on infrastructure growth and be able to use all their existing v4  
holdings to connect customers.  This also provides those customers  
that are dual stacked (and who haven't turned off v6 because that's  
what the ISP/software vendor/etc. call center told them to do) native  
v6 connectivity.


However, more realistically, I fear we're more likely to see a world  
of multi-layer NAT because (a) the technology exists, (b) the ISP  
doesn't have to learn much (if anything) new, and (c) it fits nicely  
into a walled garden business model that permits the ISP to sell  
"value added" services (e.g., "a mere additional $5/month if you'd  
like port X forwarded.").


Blech.

Regards,
-drc

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Andrew Burnette]

Stuart Henderson wrote:

On 2008-03-13, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  What is  
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the  
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request  
IPv6.


There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, though
content which is _only_ available over IPv6 is probably more likely
to stimulate demand.




But there's no $$ benefit for being either the chicken or the egg.

The carriers (many still with oversized debt loads) don't see any 
advantage for deployment in a general sense. But they'll likely have an 
easier time than access providers.


it's a 'no thanks, but I need more address space' for many of the access 
providers, given the orders of magnitude of ports, customers, customer 
care, billing systems and so on that may have to be updated to handle 
yet another layer in their networks.


And content providers without an audience are just toying around. Maybe 
they'll have the easiest time. hard to say.


It's almost like the volunteer line, where everyone else in line has to 
step back so that someone gets stuck being first doing the dirty work.


Same for the end user. They don't care how a microwave oven works, they 
simply toss in a bag, press the popcorn button and expect results.


regards,
andy

Re: Tools to measure TCP connection speed

[Wil Schultz]

Son of a biscuit, they took the commands out of my 7200's and 6500's.

You used to be able to just type "ttcp" and follow some prompts, I'm  
not sure that Cisco ever really documented much of it though. I had  
found it through DOTU back in the day.


Quoted from Cisco about this:
"Note: The ttcp command is a hidden, unsupported, privileged mode  
command. As such, its availability may vary from one Cisco IOS  
software release to another, such that it might not exist in some  
releases."


http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/471/ttcp.html

-Wil

On Mar 13, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Gabor Ivanszky wrote:


Hi Wil,

could you give me a pointer how ttcp could be used router to router?

cheers,
Gabor

Wil Schultz wrote:


A couple of tools I use from time to time are iperf and ttcp. I'll  
run iperf on some host and either run ttcp to it from a router or  
iperf to another host. You can also run ttcp router to router.


-wil

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Andrew Burnette]

Leo Bicknell wrote:

In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - 
iNAME wrote:

Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so.  This is the first time I've
heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with
some authority.  Anyone hear anything like this?  My own opinion is that
we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come.


ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost.  While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon
as the market will let them as a cost saving measure.  Runing for
"decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for
all involved.



labels in the core, for a long while.

This transition will be about as smooth as the US moving to the metric 
system. (e.g. everyone buys soda in two liter bottles, wine in 750ml 
bottles, but can't mentally buy liters of gasolineor 1.1826 liters 
of beer, aka 'forty').


Same could be said for the Auto Industry. Thank [some dead 
mathematician] that 3/4" lug nuts are also 19mm or we'd really be 
screwed :-)


No flag day here (I would pay serious money to see that happen though, 
it would be a total riot from the get go).  There is some interesting 
movement in the US in particular to put up 'enough' v6 window dressing 
to be compliant with US gov't contracts and so on which will match up 
with the OMB [unfunded] mandate to be IPv6 compatible by this june.


As for the SOHO, not sure if anything other the next chip revision and 
firmware are needed. Besides, will they be NAT boxen with a dozen 
application layer gateway helpers like today?  Or will they be actual 
firewalls. Hard to say which is more difficult or code complex. With the 
pace of silicon replacement in SOHO product lines, the next silicon spin 
could do the either stack or both for the same cost.


best regards,
andy

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2008-03-13, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   What is  
> _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the  
> chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request  
> IPv6.

There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, though
content which is _only_ available over IPv6 is probably more likely
to stimulate demand.

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Randy Bush]

>> and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
> I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and
> Europe are running IPv6 right now?  I'm aware, for example, that NTT is
> using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport
> service not connected to the Internet.  I'm unaware (but would be very
> interested in hearing about) any service in Asia or Europe that is
> seeing significant IPv6 traffic.

you mean aside from the ipv6 forum mailing list?  [ note that ipv6 forum
members do not actually run ipv6, they just think other people should. ]

the stats i am seeing, and they are not really great measurements, but
they're what we have, are coming up on 1% ipv6 traffic.  and this is
pretty much the same asia, europe, and north america, with less down south.

> My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are
> missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant.  What is
> _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
> chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
> IPv6.  Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the
> business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it.  Without
> infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to
> deploy content on top of IPv6.

actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge.  there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user.  they just want their mtv, and do not
care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.

it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4
squeeze and need to seek alternatives.  and, imiho, ipv6 is the
preferable alternative we have today.  and it is we the operators who
get to make it deployable so that the customers will not have to care
how their mtv is delivered.

and the chicks ain't free.

randy

Re: v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Owen DeLong wrote:
While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order. AFAICS, the 
impact will be that residential and similar usage will be more heavily 
NATted.  Enterprises need to pay higher cost per public v4 address.  IPv4 
multihoming practises will evolve (e.g., instead of multihoming with PI, 
you multihome with one provider's PA space; you use multiconnecting to one 
ISP instead of multihoming).  Newcomers to market (whether ISPs or those 
sites which wish to start multihoming) are facing higher costs (the latter 
of which is also a good thing). Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase 
but we still don't end up routing /32's globally.


I am confused by your statement.  It appears you are saying that it 
is a good thing for sites that wish to multihome to face higher 
costs.  If that is truly what you are saying, then, I must 
strenuously disagree.  I think that increased cost for resilient 
networking is a very bad thing.


I understand your reasoning (we've been through this before so we'll 
just have to agree to disagree).  If a site is unwilling to pay, e.g., 
1$/yr for its multihoming, maybe it should stop polluting the 
global routing table and instead use other redundancy mechanisms. 
Today, it's too cheap to pollute global DFZ; increasing the cost 
motivates finding other mechanisms to obtain redundancy.


While price for a /20 or /16 of address space might go up pretty high, a 
/24 can still be obtained with a reasonable cost.  Those ISPs with lots of 
spare or freeable v4 space will be best placed to profit from new customers 
and as a result v6 will remain an unattractive choice for end-users.



Only for some limited period of time.  Even those "freeable" /24s will get
used up fairly quickly.


Even a single /8 will allow 64K allocations for multihoming 
perspective; that's more than we have today, and there is a lot more 
spare or freeable space to use.


[...]
However, once we reach somewhat minimal critical mass in IPv6 
content, and, NAT-PT solutions are more readily available and better 
understood, I think you'll see most new enterprise deployments being 
done with IPv6.


I agree with most of what you're saying but given that most enterprise 
admins are familiar with v4 and not with v6, if the enterprise is 
going to be completely behind a NAT or NAT-PT anyway, it may be 
difficult to find the benefit to deploy the enterprise network with v6 
rather than with v4 private addresses.  Easier company mergers is 
probably one of the highest on the list, "futureproofing the network" 
is probably not considered worth the expense.


So v6 capabilities in the ISP backbones will improve but the end-users and 
sites still don't get v6 ubiquituously.  This is a significant improvement 
from v6 perspective but is still not enough to get to 90% global v6 
deployment.



I'm not sure why 90% is necessary or even desirable in the short
term.  What's magic about 90%?


Don't ask me for the magic number -- I just took what Leo offered. :-)

 What I think is more interesting is arriving at the point where you 
can deploy a new site entirely with IPv6 without concerns about 
being disconnected from some (significant) portion of the internet 
(intarweb?).


I agree that's an interesting (earlier) scenario. To me what you 
require represents a situation where basically every ISP is offering 
v6 and it's widely considered to have similar SLAs as v4 today has, 
and it's used sufficiently widely and is reliable.


To get there in practice, ISPs will need users which require this kind 
of SLAs and reliability.  So, while 90% user and content penetration 
is is not needed to reach this goal, it will need to be significantly 
higher than, say, 5%.  Who are going to be the first v6 end-sites and 
content provides?  It's a thankless job to be on the bleeding edge and 
it may be difficult to define a business case for it.


--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[John Curran]

At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote:
>  What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in 
> the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6. 
>  Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to 
> deploy the infrastructure to support it.

If ISP's are waiting for new IPv6-only content to create customer
demand to justify their business case for IPv6 enablement, then
that's their choice.

Reality will win in the end, and my $$ will be on the providers who
justified their IPv6 enablement on being able to continue to grow.

/John

Re: v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]

[David Conrad]

On Mar 13, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still don't end up  
routing /32's globally.


No, that's what we have IPv6 for ('cause, you know, IPv6 /32s are  
smaller than IPv4 /32s... or something...) :-)


Regards,
-drc

Re: v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]

[Owen DeLong]

While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order.  
AFAICS, the impact will be that residential and similar usage will  
be more heavily NATted.  Enterprises need to pay higher cost per  
public v4 address.  IPv4 multihoming practises will evolve (e.g.,  
instead of multihoming with PI, you multihome with one provider's PA  
space; you use multiconnecting to one ISP instead of multihoming).   
Newcomers to market (whether ISPs or those sites which wish to start  
multihoming) are facing higher costs (the latter of which is also a  
good thing). Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still  
don't end up routing /32's globally.


I am confused by your statement.  It appears you are saying that it is  
a good
thing for sites that wish to multihome to face higher costs.  If that  
is truly
what you are saying, then, I must strenuously disagree.  I think that  
increased

cost for resilient networking is a very bad thing.

While price for a /20 or /16 of address space might go up pretty  
high, a /24 can still be obtained with a reasonable cost.  Those  
ISPs with lots of spare or freeable v4 space will be best placed to  
profit from new customers and as a result v6 will remain an  
unattractive choice for end-users.


Only for some limited period of time.  Even those "freeable" /24s will  
get

used up fairly quickly.

IANA and RIRs running out of v4 space may allow making a better case  
to an ISP's management that their backbone should be made v6 capable  
(to support customers who want v6) but it doesn't provide the case  
for the ISP to deploy v6 to its residential users, and it doesn't  
provide a case for the enterprises to start v6 transition (because  
they need to support v4 anyway).  It may also make a case for ISPs  
which don't have much spare IPv4 space and cannot free or obtain it  
to try to market v6 to their end-users.



The case for IPv6 end-user deployment will most likely occur when new
IPv4 addresses for those customers become more costly than supporting
a NAT-PT infrastructure with the appropriate DNS hackery and such.

It would be nice (and cheaper in the long run) if ISPs were ahead of  
that
curve in some way, but, the reality is that's probably going to be the  
driver.

Eventually, enough NAT-PT eyeballs will drive IPv6 native content
capabilities (although in ability to get IPv4 addresses for new content
hosts may also serve as a driver there).

In terms of enterprise, I think that will be the last group to convert.
I don't think you will see much enterprise level migration until they
are faced with their ISPs wanting to shut down IPv4 and raising the
IPv4 transit costs accordingly.  However, once we reach somewhat
minimal critical mass in IPv6 content, and, NAT-PT solutions are
more readily available and better understood, I think you'll see
most new enterprise deployments being done with IPv6.

So v6 capabilities in the ISP backbones will improve but the end- 
users and sites still don't get v6 ubiquituously.  This is a  
significant improvement from v6 perspective but is still not enough  
to get to 90% global v6 deployment.



I'm not sure why 90% is necessary or even desirable in the short
term.  What's magic about 90%?  What I think is more interesting
is arriving at the point where you can deploy a new site entirely
with IPv6 without concerns about being disconnected from some
(significant) portion of the internet (intarweb?).

Once we're at that point, the rest can sort itself as the timeframe
becomes merely an issue of economics.  Prior to that point, the
issues are of much greater potential impact beyond the mere
financial.

Owen

Re: Data Center Migration Resource

[Dennis Dayman]

Wanted to thank all that replied. I am sending a few of you to my IT 
people for consideration.


-Dennis

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[David Conrad]

Jamie,

On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:

MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.


The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is  
actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have  
shown).  There are lots of bits and pieces that are necessary for mere  
mortals to actually use IPv6.


The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled  
everywhere,


I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living that while  
the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or faster than IPv4, doing  
so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is lacking.   
What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which I'm told  
have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being shipped) necessary  
to do everything core routers are expected to do for IPv6 yet.



and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.


I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and  
Europe are running IPv6 right now?  I'm aware, for example, that NTT  
is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal  
transport service not connected to the Internet.  I'm unaware (but  
would be very interested in hearing about) any service in Asia or  
Europe that is seeing significant IPv6 traffic.


The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the  
year.


I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be "IPv6  
capable" (whatever that means) by this summer.  If there is a mandate  
to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the year, people are  
going to have to get very, very busy very, very quickly.



The
only bits that are missing right now are the routers and switches at  
the

edge, and support from transit providers,


My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are  
missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant.  What is  
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the  
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request  
IPv6.  Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the  
business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it.  Without  
infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to  
deploy content on top of IPv6.



and if they're going to keep
supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major  
player

in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen.


Remember GOSIP?

Regards,
-drc

v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]

[Pekka Savola]

I changed the subject line.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:

My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2)
-> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet.
Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward.


The driver for 1-2 is the end of the IPv4 free pool.  It doesn't
much matter if the cause is IPv4 simply not being available anymore,
or if the result is some way of moving IPv4 addresses around for
money; they both will get the bean counters attention real quick.
In essense the cost of IPv4 is going to dramatically rise, one way
or another.

And that's only the first order effect of getting the addresses.
Second order effects like hanling the routing table deaggregation
haven't begun to be calculated.


Many people seem to have waken up from the slumber lately with a 
realization that when IANA/RIR v4 pool runs out in a couple of years, 
v6 had better be ready for prime time!


While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order. 
AFAICS, the impact will be that residential and similar usage will be 
more heavily NATted.  Enterprises need to pay higher cost per public 
v4 address.  IPv4 multihoming practises will evolve (e.g., instead of 
multihoming with PI, you multihome with one provider's PA space; you 
use multiconnecting to one ISP instead of multihoming).  Newcomers to 
market (whether ISPs or those sites which wish to start multihoming) 
are facing higher costs (the latter of which is also a good thing). 
Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still don't end up 
routing /32's globally.


While price for a /20 or /16 of address space might go up pretty high, 
a /24 can still be obtained with a reasonable cost.  Those ISPs with 
lots of spare or freeable v4 space will be best placed to profit from 
new customers and as a result v6 will remain an unattractive choice 
for end-users.


IANA and RIRs running out of v4 space may allow making a better case 
to an ISP's management that their backbone should be made v6 capable 
(to support customers who want v6) but it doesn't provide the case for 
the ISP to deploy v6 to its residential users, and it doesn't provide 
a case for the enterprises to start v6 transition (because they need 
to support v4 anyway).  It may also make a case for ISPs which don't 
have much spare IPv4 space and cannot free or obtain it to try to 
market v6 to their end-users.


So v6 capabilities in the ISP backbones will improve but the end-users 
and sites still don't get v6 ubiquituously.  This is a significant 
improvement from v6 perspective but is still not enough to get to 90% 
global v6 deployment.


--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[David Barak]

--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be
> running IPv4 in 20
> years.  A two decade transition period just does not fit
> this industry's
> history.

To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there, so 
you might be surprised how long things linger.  But your point is well taken - 
once IPv4 stops being the primary internetworking protocol, it'll be reduced to 
special cases pretty quickly.

David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com



  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[michael.dillon]

> I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the 
> "extra recurring support cost of having to work through two 
> stacks with every customer that dials in" as being far 
> greater than any technology costs in either single-stack 
> scenario.  The 'recurring' part is the real killer.

This is why any ISP that has not moved their core network
over to MPLS, really needs to take a serious look at doing
so now. If you do this then you only really need to support
IPv6 on your edge routers (MPLS PE) which are used to connect
IPv6 customers. Those PEs will use 6PE to provide native IPv6
to your customers.

Dual stack is not the only solution.

Note that it is also possible to use something like GRE tunnels
over IP4 to build an IPv6 overlay. Depending on the scale of
your network (and your capital budget) this may also be an 
attractive way to ease into IPv6 without changing everything.

There is a whole smorgasbord of choices to make. It's not an
easy slam-dunk proposition and you can't just find someone
to tell you how to handle your network situation. It's not
like the early 1990's when you could get away with following
the crowd.

--Michael Dillon

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Jamie Bowden]

MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.  The
core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere,
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.  The US
Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year.  The
only bits that are missing right now are the routers and switches at the
edge, and support from transit providers, and if they're going to keep
supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major player
in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen.
>From there, I'd expect a slow but steady uptake across the rest of North
America.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:18 AM
To: Leo Bicknell
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO
routers?]


On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
>   money off IPv4.  We're already well into this state.
>
> 2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
>   other transition mechanisms in place.

Who has the other transition mechanisms in place?  What is the cost of 
deploying those transition mechanisms?  At present it's not obvious 
how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are 
profitable.

> 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6.
>
> Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two,
> making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter
> than it is to run dual stack down the road.  On that point, I agree.

That's not all.  I also tried to point out that in order to get to 2), 
you're facing a decade of slow transition or you have to deploy 
transition mechanisms which have substantial cost.  A transition 
mechanism is also needed to move from 2) to 3).

My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) 
-> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet. 
Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward.

> My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look
> around and start to ask "can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4".

I agree but you don't clearly address how exactly we're going to get 
to 2) in the first place -- that's a huge step.  In order to move to 
stage 2), a LOT of deployment is needed and/or a lot of transition 
mechanisms (mainly translation in this context, I assume) need to be 
deployed which has significant cost involved.

I agree that if 90% or 99% of net is dual-stack or using a working 
transition mechanisms (so the expectation is that almost everything 
would work with v6-only), the jump to 3) will be relatively quick for 
the reasons you say.

We've been a decade in step 1).  We'll likely continue to be another 
decade in step 1) before moving to 2) unless radical transition 
technology is developed and deployed in a significant scale (and 
someone figures out a business model how it helps in the short term). 
Once we get 2), the time it takes to move to 3) is probably almost an 
order of magnitude less than what it took to get to 2).

> The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that
> is in phase 2, for "decades".  I proport there are strong economic
> reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case.

I may interpret your steps differently, but I see at least a decade 
more of work before we get to step 2) (i.e., before we get to 90% 
penetration).

-- 
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola 
wrote:
> Who has the other transition mechanisms in place?  What is the cost of 
> deploying those transition mechanisms?  At present it's not obvious 
> how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are 
> profitable.

It's very hard, so most people aren't deploying, yet.

> My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) 
> -> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet. 
> Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward.

The driver for 1-2 is the end of the IPv4 free pool.  It doesn't
much matter if the cause is IPv4 simply not being available anymore,
or if the result is some way of moving IPv4 addresses around for
money; they both will get the bean counters attention real quick.
In essense the cost of IPv4 is going to dramatically rise, one way
or another.

And that's only the first order effect of getting the addresses.
Second order effects like hanling the routing table deaggregation
haven't begun to be calculated.

So basically the IPv4 free pool exhaustion will drive 1-2 rather
rapidly.  Once we're in state 2, simple economics will drive the
2-3 transtion rather rapidly.

20 years ago was 1988.  The World Wide Web did not even exist.  AOL
(the first service branded under that name) wasn't launched until
1989.  A T1 served an enter university campus.  9600 baud was a
fast modem.  In essense, the entire industry as we know it was built
in the last 20 years.

Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be running IPv4 in 20
years.  A two decade transition period just does not fit this industry's
history.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpVCVnV6tYYq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:

1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
  money off IPv4.  We're already well into this state.

2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
  other transition mechanisms in place.


Who has the other transition mechanisms in place?  What is the cost of 
deploying those transition mechanisms?  At present it's not obvious 
how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are 
profitable.



3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6.

Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two,
making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter
than it is to run dual stack down the road.  On that point, I agree.


That's not all.  I also tried to point out that in order to get to 2), 
you're facing a decade of slow transition or you have to deploy 
transition mechanisms which have substantial cost.  A transition 
mechanism is also needed to move from 2) to 3).


My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) 
-> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet. 
Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward.



My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look
around and start to ask "can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4".


I agree but you don't clearly address how exactly we're going to get 
to 2) in the first place -- that's a huge step.  In order to move to 
stage 2), a LOT of deployment is needed and/or a lot of transition 
mechanisms (mainly translation in this context, I assume) need to be 
deployed which has significant cost involved.


I agree that if 90% or 99% of net is dual-stack or using a working 
transition mechanisms (so the expectation is that almost everything 
would work with v6-only), the jump to 3) will be relatively quick for 
the reasons you say.


We've been a decade in step 1).  We'll likely continue to be another 
decade in step 1) before moving to 2) unless radical transition 
technology is developed and deployed in a significant scale (and 
someone figures out a business model how it helps in the short term). 
Once we get 2), the time it takes to move to 3) is probably almost an 
order of magnitude less than what it took to get to 2).



The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that
is in phase 2, for "decades".  I proport there are strong economic
reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case.


I may interpret your steps differently, but I see at least a decade 
more of work before we get to step 2) (i.e., before we get to 90% 
penetration).


--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola 
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
> >Running dual stack increases cost.  While I'm not sure about the 5
> >year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon
> >as the market will let them as a cost saving measure.  Runing for
> >"decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for
> >all involved.
> 
> So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is 
> higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding 
> edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future 
> customers still wedded to the older IP protocol?

You are mixing stages of adoption.  The Internet will progress as
follows:

1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
   money off IPv4.  We're already well into this state.

2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
   other transition mechanisms in place.

3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6.

Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two,
making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter
than it is to run dual stack down the road.  On that point, I agree.

My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look
around and start to ask "can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4".
The answer will be yes.  Initially the answer will be "but our
customers will be upset", and it won't happen, but the bean counters
are persistent, and will keep asking the question over and over.
They will make sure phase 2 lasts no longer than it must.

Which brings us into phase 3.  While engineers may see it as simple
clean up, large networks will see phase 3 has a huge money saving
operation by that point in time.  Once the first major (top 10?)
network removes IPv4 support I expect all the rest to follow within
2 years, tops.  Edge and nitche networks may support it longer, but
it will drop from the Internet core quickly.

The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that
is in phase 2, for "decades".  I proport there are strong economic
reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpDI8UStbi8R.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:

I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the "extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in" as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario.  The 'recurring' part is the
real killer.


If the customer would be v6-only, I agree.

If the customer is v4-only, I would posit that it's in most cases 
impossibleto get the customers upgraded to v6.  I would also argue 
(based on my understanding) that translating or tunneling v4-only 
clients over v6-only network would cause pretty much equal or greater 
complexities as dual-stack.


If the customer is dual-stack, I would agree that v6-only is simpler, 
but that gets back to the point of, "does the whole internet support 
v6 or is there alternative, reliable way to reach the rest?"  As a 
result you will need to deal with v4 connectivity issues as well.


NB: we have had dual-stack backbone for about 6 years and are not 
seeing major pain.  Sure, v6-only would be even easier in the longer 
term, but as far as I've seen, the major transition issues are at the 
edges, not in the core network.


--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[David W. Hankins]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
> >Running dual stack increases cost.  While I'm not sure about the 5
> >year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon
> >as the market will let them as a cost saving measure.  Runing for
> >"decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for
> >all involved.
> 
> So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is 
> higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding 
> edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future 
> customers still wedded to the older IP protocol?

I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the "extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in" as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario.  The 'recurring' part is the
real killer.

-- 
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil?  https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
-- 
David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.   -- Jack T. Hankins


pgpolPyLiJUnU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Mark Prior]

Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:


The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to 
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.


Hi MMC,

You might want to contribute to


and suggest to them that Internode wants this release for their customers.

Mark.

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Joel Jaeggli]

Mark Newton wrote:


Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck.
I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out
of the box.


Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6.

Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS (line card swap) 
before you can leverage it directly on the cable in a consumer environment.


DSL aggregation routers are challenge where again equipment lifecycle 
plays in to whether you're in a position to deploy.



(Billion in Taiwan has a device which they've stamped an "IPv6 Ready"
sticker onto, but the IPv6 version of the software hasn't left the
confines of their lab yet)

As far as I've been able to determine, IPv6 SOHO CPE is largely
vaporware right now.  And lets not even get started on residential
grade CPE, that doesn't even appear to be on most vendors' radar
_at all_.  If anything useful is going to happen in this space,
my guess is that it'll be with custom Linux firmware running on
a LinkSys blob with no vendor support.


  - mark


--
Mark Newton   Email:  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (W)
Network Engineer  Email:  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (H)

Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223

cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[Pekka Savola]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:

In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - 
iNAME wrote:

Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so.  This is the first time I've
heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with
some authority.  Anyone hear anything like this?  My own opinion is that
we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come.


ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost.  While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon
as the market will let them as a cost saving measure.  Runing for
"decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for
all involved.


So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is 
higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding 
edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future 
customers still wedded to the older IP protocol?


--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[Mohacsi Janos]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:



The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but 
it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically 
turn on IPv6 to them one day.


The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in Australia, is the 
Cisco 857/877 series (which work quite nicely I have to say :-)
(Some earlier Cisco 800 series ADSL routers will work, but aren't currently 
available).


Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We 
tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My 
colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices they 
have IPv6 support. However I think these devices are not consumer 
equipments. I would call SO (Small Office) devices. The HO (home office) 
devices are the ~ 50-100 USD devices - you rarely see official ipv6 
support.



Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882



A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells 
consumer CPE said "Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature 
that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you 
ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?".


Bah.  And people wonder why I'm cynical.

MMC

Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:

Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too:

http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE

Frank


--
Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks
Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999  Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the 
old ones" - John Maynard Keynes