Re: Creating demand for IPv6, and saving the planet

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only killer-content 
that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought about this, and about the 
government's push to make IPv6 a reality. What occurred to me is there is 
a satellite sitting in storage that would provide such content:


  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triana_(satellite)

Al Gore pushed for this satellite, Triana, to provide those on earth with 
a view of the planet among its scientific goals. The

Republicans referred to it as an "overpriced screen saver," though
the effect even of just the camera component on people's lives
and how they treat the planet could be considerable.

By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the still images and video 
from servers only connected to native IPv6 bandwidth, the government would 
provide both a strong incentive for end users to want to move to IPv6, and 
a way to get the people of this planet to stop from time to time and 
ponder the future of the earth.


Here's a simple question that applies to every "killer app" that's been 
proposed for IPv6: if you're going to the trouble of making a killer app and 
giving/selling it to the public, why wouldn't you include support for IPv4?


Virtually every "unique" feature of IPv6, except the number of bits in the 
address, has been back-ported to IPv4.  There is simply no other advantage 
left, and thus no room for apps that "require" IPv6.


S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 

Re: Creating demand for IPv6

[Paul Vixie]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:

> ... You cannot simply wave a magic wand and say "there shall be no NAT". ...

actually, you can.  see RFC 4966.  don't be fooled by the title, it's not just
damning NAT-PT, since it justifies doing so by stating that NAT is damned.

(of course, waving a magic wand and saying something doesn't make it so.)
-- 
Paul Vixie

Re: Creating demand for IPv6

[Jon Lewis]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

I don't know the status of the v6 initial assignment fee; I think that the v6 
initial allocation fee was waived at one point.  If they're not waived now, 
that'd be a one-time cost of $1250.


I'm pretty sure it's still being waived (at least for ISP/LIRs).  I just 
applied for and received Atlantic.net's v6 /32 without paying any fees in 
advance.  IIRC, with IPv4 initial allocations, you have to pay in advance.


--
 Jon Lewis   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: Creating demand for IPv6

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Seth Mattinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well,
please take that argument to PPML.  As of today, if you qualify
for PIv4 space, you qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and
you only have to pay the fees for one of them.


Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user 
allocations.


If you're an end user, you pay $100/yr for _all_ your resources.  If you're 
an LIR, you pay either your v4 or v6 maintenance fees, whichever is greater.


I don't know the status of the v6 initial assignment fee; I think that the 
v6 initial allocation fee was waived at one point.  If they're not waived 
now, that'd be a one-time cost of $1250.


The only $500/yr fee is to be a "General Member", which is how non-LIRs get 
to vote in ARIN elections.  You don't need to be a member to get a v6 
assignment.


S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 

Re: Creating demand for IPv6

[William Herrin]

On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well, please
> take that argument to PPML.  As of today, if you qualify for PIv4 space, you
> qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to pay the fees
> for one of them.

Stephen,

At this point its not an ARIN problem. The requirement from the
operators (like us) is that ARIN keep the total number of PI prefixes
to a minimum. So long as that requirement stands, ARIN is doing the
best it can.

Having recently dealt with the 244k IPv4 TCAM limit on my 6500 sup
2's, I'll stipulate that the requirement has merit. But lets not pass
buck; its our requirement, not ARIN's.

Also, to be clear: if you meet the requirements for IPv4 addresses
today then you can get IPv6 addresses today. This is not parity with
IPv4: a large number of IPv4 addresses are presently assigned to
organizations who met the requirements of their day but do not meet
today's requirements.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3005 Crane Dr.Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Creating demand for IPv6

[Seth Mattinen]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:


Thus spake "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:

1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses

At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a
negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.

This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2,
even to the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source
of demand as well.


If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well, please 
take that argument to PPML.  As of today, if you qualify for PIv4 space, 
you qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to pay the 
fees for one of them.




Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user 
allocations.


~Seth

Re: Creating demand for IPv6

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:

1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses

At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a
negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.

This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2,
even to the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source
of demand as well.


If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well, please 
take that argument to PPML.  As of today, if you qualify for PIv4 space, you 
qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to pay the fees 
for one of them.


If you're claiming that you have a PIv6 block and ISPs won't route it, 
please publicly shame the offending parties here so the rest of us will know 
not to give them our money.


S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking