Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote: Oh oh I see another one taking the path that leads to the dark side. Michel, you forgot to include the audio: http://www.bgpexpert.com/darkside.mp3 Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6 (given you have 4)? Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra address space. I have a /29 at home, which is pretty luxurious compared to what most people have, but not nearly enough to give all my boxes a real address if I turn them all on at the same time. Worse, I still haven't figured out a way to give some machines always the same address (if available) but also use that address for something else if the "owner" is turned off. In IPv6 all of this is a breeze: a single /64 gives you all the addresses you'll ever need and boxes configure themselves with the same address each time they boot, even when using different routers and no need for DHCP. Another thing I really like about IPv6 is the much smarter "on-link" behavior. In IPv4, it's not uncommon to have two hosts on the same physicial subnet, but with addresses from different prefixes. These hosts will then have to communicate through a router, which in this time of cheap 10/100/1000 cards usually isn't the fastest option. In IPv6 each subnet prefix has enough addresses to hold all hosts that you can possibly connect to a layer 2 network in the first place. But it also handles this situation much better, if it comes up: routers can advertise additional prefixes as "on-link" so hosts know they can reach destinations in those prefixes directly over layer 2. Redirects also work across prefixes. (Similarly, routing protocols use link local addresses which make it possible to run RIP or OSPF between two routers that don't share any prefixes.) Since there is no need for NAT, every IPv6 host can run a server for any protocol without trouble. Because of the large address space, scanning address blocks is no longer an option. If you have multiple routers, you pretty much have HSRP/VRRP functionality automatically. Renumbering is much easier. It's also very handy to be able to log in to a box, completely screw up its IPv4 configuration and rebuild it from scratch without having to worry that the host becomes unreachable and needs a powercycle. And, to be more on-topic, name one good reason why a network operator would want it? Especially given that, apart from the traditional bleeding edges (academic networks), no customers are asking for it. I think "no customers" is rounding it down slightly. Yes, demand is low, but so is supply, hard to tell which causes which. And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down. As Paul Vixie points out, without a multihoming solution beyond that offered by 4, v6 networks will look just v4 - most of it will be on non-global address space and NAT. Not really interesting.. Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: take addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously your /48 will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't filtered between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link to either fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to another primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much easier in IPv6. [snip darth vader] I know, what's worse is that I know it need not be so. (how's your MHAP doing? How's Iljitsch's geo-assigned addressing proposal?) Michel is no longer in the IPv6 business, and I've failed miserably at convincing people that geographic aggregation is helpful here. So currently, multi6 is looking at approaches that allow transport protocols to jump addresses in the middle of a session.
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
At 10:32 AM +0200 4/18/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down. Change providers. A request for new functionality from existing customers may not always get the attention it deserves, but I don't know of a provider that doesn't sit up and pay attention when a customer leaves to the competition. And what does it say if you're not willing to go through the hassle to change providers to get IPv6 services? :-) /John
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Apr 18, 2004, at 4:32 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote: Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6 (given you have 4)? Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra address space. I have a /29 at home, which is pretty luxurious compared to what most people have, but not nearly enough to give all my boxes a real address if I turn them all on at the same time. Worse, I still haven't figured out a way to give some machines always the same address (if available) but also use that address for something else if the "owner" is turned off. In IPv6 all of this is a breeze: a single /64 gives you all the addresses you'll ever need and boxes configure themselves with the same address each time they boot, even when using different routers and no need for DHCP. Dunno what your problem is, I have no problem getting as much address space as I need as long as I can justify it. Perhaps you need to speak to your provider? Another thing I really like about IPv6 is the much smarter "on-link" behavior. In IPv4, it's not uncommon to have two hosts on the same physicial subnet, but with addresses from different prefixes. These hosts will then have to communicate through a router, which in this time of cheap 10/100/1000 cards usually isn't the fastest option. In IPv6 each subnet prefix has enough addresses to hold all hosts that you can possibly connect to a layer 2 network in the first place. But it also handles this situation much better, if it comes up: routers can advertise additional prefixes as "on-link" so hosts know they can reach destinations in those prefixes directly over layer 2. Redirects also work across prefixes. (Similarly, routing protocols use link local addresses which make it possible to run RIP or OSPF between two routers that don't share any prefixes.) Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4. Since there is no need for NAT, every IPv6 host can run a server for any protocol without trouble. Have you been reading this thread? There is a need for NAT in v6. In fact, the lack of multi-homing support in v6 alone outweighs all its nice features, IMHO. Because of the large address space, scanning address blocks is no longer an option. You have a /64, scanning that would be an issue. Is scanning a /96 really "no longer an option"? How about in a year? Two years? If you have multiple routers, you pretty much have HSRP/VRRP functionality automatically. Again, nice, but since I have that in v4 Renumbering is much easier. I like this one. It's also very handy to be able to log in to a box, completely screw up its IPv4 configuration and rebuild it from scratch without having to worry that the host becomes unreachable and needs a powercycle. s/v4/v6 I would not say this is an argument for v6 in particular, but maybe an argument to run two protocols simultaneously. And, to be more on-topic, name one good reason why a network operator would want it? Especially given that, apart from the traditional bleeding edges (academic networks), no customers are asking for it. I think "no customers" is rounding it down slightly. Yes, demand is low, but so is supply, hard to tell which causes which. And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down. Certainly no customers on "The Web". Maybe some niche applications. As Paul Vixie points out, without a multihoming solution beyond that offered by 4, v6 networks will look just v4 - most of it will be on non-global address space and NAT. Not really interesting.. Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: take addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously your /48 will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't filtered between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link to either fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to another primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much easier in IPv6. This does not address the issue. If my /48 is filtered, I am still at the mercy of the provider with the super-CIDR. If that network is down, so am I. (And don't even think about saying backbones never go down.) The point of multi-homing is to _not_ be dependent on a provider. Statements like "Obviously your /48 will be filtered" show why v6 is going to take much longer to catch on than people in the v6 camp probably would like. I know, what's worse is that I know it need not be so. (how's your MHAP doing? How's Iljitsch's geo-assigned addressing proposal?) Michel is no longer in the IPv6 business, and I've failed miserably at convincing people that geographic aggregation is helpful here. So currently, multi6 is looking at approaches that allow transport protocols to jump addresses in the middle of a session. I should pay more attention to the multi6
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra > address space. I have a /29 at home, which is pretty luxurious > compared to what most people have, but not nearly enough to give > all my boxes a real address if I turn them all on at the same time. Not that luxurious really, if you have a need, find a reasonable ISP and ask and you'll receive. > this is a breeze: a single /64 gives you all the addresses you'll > ever need and boxes configure themselves with the same address each > time they boot, even when using different routers and no need for > DHCP. Right, the sparse density of v6 is definitely a win. But why care about getting same address? Anyway, see below about the NAT premise. (v4 also has reasonably abundant site-local space). > Another thing I really like about IPv6 is the much smarter > "on-link" behavior. Right, yes, but hardly a killer feature. > But it also handles this situation much better, if it comes up: > routers can advertise additional prefixes as "on-link" so hosts > know they can reach destinations in those prefixes directly over > layer 2. Redirects also work across prefixes. (Similarly, routing > protocols use link local addresses which make it possible to run > RIP or OSPF between two routers that don't share any prefixes.) Yep. > Since there is no need for NAT, every IPv6 host can run a server > for any protocol without trouble. But there _will_ be NAT, that is the very premise of this discussion, as offered by Paul Vixie. So that one doesnt count, unless you knock down the premise: There will be site-local and NAT with v6 because of the multihoming problem. > Because of the large address space, scanning address blocks is no longer an > option. > > If you have multiple routers, you pretty much have HSRP/VRRP > functionality automatically. Right, but you can do this router-side with v4 anyway. v6 makes it more integrated, but its hardly something which v4 does not have. > Renumbering is much easier. I dont see how though. I can switch v4 addresses with DHCP as easily as with RAs on v6. Sure, the routing will be slightly more fluid with v6, but I can route multiple logical subnets with v4 anyway during transition. The hard bits of renumbering are _not_ in changing the actual assigned and used addresses IMHO. > It's also very handy to be able to log in to a box, completely > screw up its IPv4 configuration and rebuild it from scratch without > having to worry that the host becomes unreachable and needs a > powercycle. That's hardly a reason to upgrade to v6. You could as well insert any non-v6 protocol in there that gives you access. That is as much an argument for running DEC LAT as it is for IPv6. :) (http://linux-decnet.sourceforge.net/lat.html) > Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: > take addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously yes. In which case, why bother? If you have a need for PI IPv4 addresses you can get them, and v6 will operate the same way - demonstrate need and you get them. If you cant demonstrate a need, you'll have to use PA. Indeed, for v4 the bar is much _lower_, if you can show you would use 10 bits of routable space you very likely will get PI assigned space, however, for v6 not only must you be able to show reasonable usage of the 16 bits provided for by standard PA, you would need to demonstrate you have a further need for the additional 16 bits needed for the minimum v6 PI assignments. So, for smaller players wishing to get PI, v4 is much easier. (and yes, i know at moment RIR requirements are relaxed, but only so as to encourage some kind of v6 up take, and its still very low.) > Obviously your /48 will be filtered, but as long as you make sure > it isn't filtered between your two ISPs, you're still reachable > when the link to either fails. So you're restricted to upstreams who not only peer with each other, but will cooperate sufficiently to allow a joint customer to announce sub-assignment of one to the other. The vague impression I have is that this is extremely rare :) > ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much easier > in IPv6. Hence the premise of this thread, v6 will have site-local and NAT. > Michel is no longer in the IPv6 business, and I've failed miserably > at convincing people that geographic aggregation is helpful here. Very very sad. But obviously geo-aggregration is not in providers interests, so... > So currently, multi6 is looking at approaches that allow transport > protocols to jump addresses in the middle of a session. And these approaches will equally apply to v4. Still no reason to switch to v6. regards, -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fortune: Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote: [...] Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4. Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now we wouldn't have this problem" more and more. Because of the large address space, scanning address blocks is no longer an option. You have a /64, scanning that would be an issue. Is scanning a /96 really "no longer an option"? How about in a year? Two years? People usually get /48s in IPv6, and you're not really supposed to use anything smaller than a /64 for most of the IPv6 address space. Let's assume a scan rate of 10 Gbps @ 64 bytes/packet. This makes it possible to probe in the order of 2^40 addresses per day, so it should take 2^24 days to scan a /64 ~= 46000 years. I think "no customers" is rounding it down slightly. Yes, demand is low, but so is supply, hard to tell which causes which. And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down. Certainly no customers on "The Web". Maybe some niche applications. See http://countipv6.bgpexpert.com/. The different numbers under "site" represent different web pages. 8 is a fairly standard one, and it gets around 0.15% visits from people who are v6-capable. (It's a page in Dutch, though, so the results are not representative of the situation in the US.) Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: take addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously your /48 will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't filtered between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link to either fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to another primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much easier in IPv6. This does not address the issue. If my /48 is filtered, I am still at the mercy of the provider with the super-CIDR. If that network is down, so am I. True. However, many people don't get to do better than this in v4 either. (And don't even think about saying backbones never go down.) Wouldn't dream of it. :-)
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
> >Renumbering is much easier. > > I like this one. Now this is a funny one about IPv6. How is renumbering *any* easier than IPv4? Yes you have autoconf based on route advertisements/solicits on the client end from the routers, but how is that any different than IPv4+DHCP? Is it perhaps b/c IPv6 uses "classful" styled numbering scheme? (i.e. you have /64 to end sites, where you simply s/old:old:old:old/new:new:new:new/ ) There is also a doc about renumbering in IPv6 http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-baker-ipv6-renumber-procedure/ I guess it is easier to renumbering in IPv6, but even in IPv4, a proper set of procedures and well-done planning can make renumbering process way less painful than anticipated. > >Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: take > >addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously your /48 > >will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't filtered > >between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link to either > >fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to another > >primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much > >easier in IPv6. ??? How is this any different than bungled up peering with the 2nd provider with half-way transit? If my /48 is filtered from GRT, but at least both of my upstreams see it, I don't see it as multihoming. I see it as Broken multihoming. Another issue... How is IPv6 going to solve aggregation problem is something still being worked on. Making TLA spaces requirement for multihoming, like in RFC2772 is helping a lot in aggregation at the GRT, but that is definately a sledgehammer. honestly, in my sole belief, IPv6 surely integrates many of the more recent makeshift additions of IPv4, right into the protocol itself, which is a very good thing. But still, doesn't have enough real-world justification for most enterprises to plan for immediate protocol upgrade to v6, especially when multihoming issues are still not cleared, and most of improvements are already done in IPv4 with add-on's. -J -- James JunTowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical LeadNetwork Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
[consolidated some posts] > Alex Bligh wrote: > As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT > extremely badly (SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix > it are costly. So if IPv6 means I can avoid NAT, that can > actually save $$$. Likely the market will find some other way, which is not to use a protocol that has problems in 80% of environments and to use one that works smoothly everywhere; have a look at Skype... Trouble crossing NAT has always been an excuse for people that design antiquated protocols. To some extent NAT is a benefit here as it will help to get rid of these. NAT is a reality; designing a protocol that does not cross it will only doom said protocol, not remove NAT. > Petri Helenius wrote: > We need one (or more) of the p2p vendors to support it. And why are they not doing it? More work, zero gain. Today, a p2p app has to cross NAT nicely and has to work over IPv4 nicely. Why bother with IPv6? It won't bring more users in. From the user's side: why bother with IPv6 since it works fine with v4? (if it was not working fine they would not use it in the first place). > Then IPv6 traffic will explode in three months to ~10-15% > of all internet traffic In your dreams. How much does threedegrees traffic account for? 0.0001%? 0.001%? Compare to Kazaa. > Patrick W.Gilmore wrote: > Dunno what your problem is, I have no problem getting as much > address space as I need as long as I can justify it. Perhaps > you need to speak to your provider? Agree. Actually, the situation is even worse than this: I have numerous customers that stockpile IPv4 addresses that they don't need just because they can have them (just in case). A typical 400-user organization with NAT needs only a dozen or two IPv4 addresses; however, I see more and more requesting 2 class Cs from their provider because they can justify the number. And there are number of bigger enterprises that multihome for the month they request their portable address space in order to get it, and then drop BGP and the second provider. > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > [IPv6] Renumbering is much easier. What a joke. Have a look at this: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedu re-00.txt Then, ever tried to renumber a Windows 2000 domain controller? And please, save me the "Microsoft is crud" thing. 95% percent of the networks I renumbered had more than one. 75% of the renumbering hassle is orthogonal to the protocol being renumbered. > So currently, multi6 is looking at approaches that allow transport > protocols to jump addresses in the middle of a session. Which will be developed just the same for IPv4. > Paul Jakma wrote: > [snip darth vader] > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Michel, you forgot to include the audio: > http://www.bgpexpert.com/darkside.mp3 Cut/paste casualty! I requested the file from you 2 days ago for this very purpose! Paul, I'm surprised you missed the "dark side" thing. > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Michel is no longer in the IPv6 business, Wrong. I'm currently in the anti-IPv6 business. The dark side. > Paul Jakma wrote: > (how's your MHAP doing? I dumped it. > How's Iljitsch's geo-assigned addressing proposal? Right behind MHAP in oblivion land. At this very time, I think Iljitsch is wondering how to deal with Darth Py and Darth Jakma... > Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want > IPv6 (given you have 4)? And, to be more on-topic, name one > good reason why a network operator would want it? Especially > given that, apart from the traditional bleeding edges > academic networks), no customers are asking for it. You're preaching the choir. > But there _will_ be NAT, that is the very premise of this > discussion, as offered by Paul Vixie. And Tim Chown, and me, and plenty of others. > So that one doesnt count, unless you knock down the premise: > There will be site-local and NAT with v6 because of the > multihoming problem. I used to think that way, but no longer. When we started ipv6mh, there was still a chance that providing a reasonable multihoming solution would get IPv6 out the mud hole. Trouble is that there were developments in other sectors of IPv6 that I was not able to foreseen have changed the situation to a point where IPv6 multihoming is no more that a bug on the windshield of IETF backroom politics, to re-use Vixie's words. For everyone, here's the bottom line: - Today, what to do with IPv6 is simple: nothing. Whether you are an end-user/small business, large enterprise or provider everyone is in the same situation: is costs money to upgrade, causes trouble, not the only thing we have to do anyway, there is no demand and therefore no ROI. It is urgent to wait. IPv6 is in a very similar situation ISDN was some time ago: I Still Don't Need. - - - - - Tomorrow, IPv4 will get the small upgrades that are needed. Michel.
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now > we wouldn't have this problem" more and more. Which problem is that? ;) (and if it involves NAT... sorry, no.) > See http://countipv6.bgpexpert.com/. The different numbers under > "site" represent different web pages. 8 is a fairly standard one, > and it gets around 0.15% visits from people who are v6-capable. And are these sites in any way related to IPv6 or networking? (news at 11, Web sites about IPv6 get less than 1% v6 traffic ;) ) regards, -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fortune: If your happiness depends on what somebody else does, I guess you do have a problem. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"
RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote: > - Tomorrow, IPv4 will get the small upgrades that are needed. Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now? Or ability to do QoS PtP over internet? Or security that is built in and not part of additional layer? Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not attractive at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100 years is not an option in my view - we just need to put more effort on things like multihoming support for ipv6 (and its not an unsolvable problem, the cell phone companies are somehow able to deal with greatly increasing number of phones and use of cell phones and roaming works quite well, for me almost everywhere at least). -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
> william(at)elan.net wrote: > Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now? Maybe. Given the current stockpiling plus the extension of IPv4 to 32 bits to 48 bits (32 bits+port) that shortage that we have heard for the last 10 years would happen any time soon might not even be an issue. > Or ability to do QoS PtP over internet? Nothing to do with IPv6. > Or security that is built in and not part of additional layer? What about security that we have heard for the last 10 years will be built-in and still is not, when we use IPSEC for IPv4 daily even across NAT? > we just need to put more effort on things like > multihoming support for ipv6 Kind of ironic this is addressed to _me_ > continuing ipv4 for next 100 years is not an option in my view Not in mine either but it's not an excuse to defend a failure. I know lots of people that could have done without the mandatory ISDN upgrade; as of myself I intend not to spend millions on IPv6 upgrades to get the same brilliant success ISDN had reaching each home and each office in America. Michel.
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Apr 18, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote: Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4. Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now we wouldn't have this problem" more and more. If you completed that thought, you would realize, "but I'd have so many more problems which are so much harder to overcome (if it is even possible to overcome them), that it really ain't worth it." Of course, many technologies start out as inferior cousins to existing stuff. Just not usually "version 6" Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: take addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously your /48 will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't filtered between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link to either fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to another primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much easier in IPv6. This does not address the issue. If my /48 is filtered, I am still at the mercy of the provider with the super-CIDR. If that network is down, so am I. True. However, many people don't get to do better than this in v4 either. Anyone who tries and does not use one of the handful of providers who filter does. IOW: This is a non-argument. The point still stands - without real multi-homing so I do not have to be dependent upon a single vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option. Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even considered when v6 was being engineered? Are the people who started the v6 movement really that out-of-touch with reality? Or were they arrogant enough to believe they could limit control to a few entities and the user base would just go along with it? -- TTFN, patrick
RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
> Patrick W.Gilmore wrote: > The point still stands - without real multi-homing > so I do not have to be dependent upon a single > vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option. > Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even > considered when v6 was being engineered? Yes, although the magnitude of the problem has been way underestimated. Most people did not understand that it had to be built and validated both in the core of the protocol and in policies; collectively they promised to fix the problem "next year" and never delivered. Same as easy renumbering, WRT to multihoming IPv6 has run on vaporware for years. > Are the people who started the v6 movement > really that out-of-touch with reality? Some are, and some are not. Generally speaking, too many people had little experience with network operations, some had experience with little relevance to the real world with sheltered networks such as research. This is a generic structural issue though, same as hunger in the world and spam: no silver bullet. Retrospectively speaking, I'm not even sure less people out-of-touch with reality in the initial phases would have changed much. > Or were they arrogant enough to believe they > could limit control to a few entities and the > user base would just go along with it? To a large extent, no. Although it is true that a few people from large operators did see early on the advantages of "lock-in" addressing, the fact of the matter is that a small routing table had the favors of lots of people. 10 years ago, the big picture of the Internet was quite different than it is today and the renumbering issues were not nearly as complex as they are today. Michel.
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On 18-apr-04, at 23:25, Paul Jakma wrote: Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now we wouldn't have this problem" more and more. Which problem is that? ;) (and if it involves NAT... sorry, no.) There are actually problems in networking that don't involve NAT... :-) Here's a good one: a customer of mine is a fast growing web hosting outfit. Many of their customers start out with one or two boxes and a handful addresses, and then grow. They put a bunch of these customers in a /24, but after a while the /24 is full and/or the customer gets a subnet of their own. So far so good. They use a layer 2 setup with significant redundancy, which inevitably leads to traffic being flooded by the switches some of the time. This means a customer receives a LOT of traffic they have no interest in. The solution here would be giving each customer their own VLAN, but this is hard to do at this juncture as the IP subnets are tightly interwoven between customers. (Doing it from the start would take too much configuration and burn address space a lot faster.) And since invariably one of the first IP addresses such a customer gets is used as an authoritative DNS, they're in no hurry to renumber. With IPv6, every customer would get their own /48, whether they need a single address or thousands. This makes moving a customer from one VLAN to another very simple, allowing the flooding problem to be controlled much better. See http://countipv6.bgpexpert.com/. The different numbers under "site" represent different web pages. 8 is a fairly standard one, and it gets around 0.15% visits from people who are v6-capable. And are these sites in any way related to IPv6 or networking? (news at 11, Web sites about IPv6 get less than 1% v6 traffic ;) ) Number 8 isn't. The other ones are to different degrees. Haesu wrote: Renumbering is much easier. I like this one. Now this is a funny one about IPv6. How is renumbering *any* easier than IPv4? Yes you have autoconf based on route advertisements/solicits on the client end from the routers, but how is that any different than IPv4+DHCP? Is it perhaps b/c IPv6 uses "classful" styled numbering scheme? (i.e. you have /64 to end sites, where you simply s/old:old:old:old/new:new:new:new/ ) This helps in editing the config files of course. However, the main difference is that with IPv6 you can change router advertisements, and within minutes all the boxes start using the new addresses, *without* breaking running sessions toward the old addresses. With DHCP you're at the mercy of the lease time timeouts and the way operating systems handle those. (For instance, under certain circumstances Windows stores its DHCP address on disk and doesn't bother to refresh it even after a reboot. Nice.) Michel's bottom line: - Today, what to do with IPv6 is simple: nothing. Whether you are an end-user/small business, large enterprise or provider everyone is in the same situation: is costs money to upgrade, causes trouble, Actually it's cheaper and easier than expected: http://nwfusion.com/news/2003/1215ipv6.html not the only thing we have to do anyway, there is no demand and therefore no ROI. It is urgent to wait. The nice (but sometimes frustrating) thing about IPv6 is that we can take (in internet time) forever to upgrade. At this point, the most important thing is to avoid building new stuff that will get in the way of IPv6 when the time comes that deploying v6 starts making sense. Unfortunately, few people understand the idea of taking 5 or 10 years to upgrade, they think this means doing nothing for 4,5 or 9,5 years and then frantically start throwing money at the problem. Oh well.
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, John Curran wrote:
: > And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down.
:
: Change providers. A request for new functionality from existing
: customers may not always get the attention it deserves, but I don't
: know of a provider that doesn't sit up and pay attention when a
: customer leaves to the competition.
:
: And what does it say if you're not willing to go through the hassle
: to change providers to get IPv6 services?
When searching for colo providers, I've gone through the hassle myself, and
I've yet to find so much as a single provider whose *uplinks*[!] support
IPv6 native, much less the provider itself, in the southeastern US.
("You must live in a nice place. Not all of us do.")
I can definitely say from experience that the low supply and adamant refusal
to adopt is squelching the demand.
--
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > not the only thing we have to do anyway, there is no demand and > > therefore no ROI. It is urgent to wait. > > The nice (but sometimes frustrating) thing about IPv6 is that we can > take (in internet time) forever to upgrade. At this point, the most > important thing is to avoid building new stuff that will get in the way > of IPv6 when the time comes that deploying v6 starts making sense. > Unfortunately, few people understand the idea of taking 5 or 10 years > to upgrade, they think this means doing nothing for 4,5 or 9,5 years > and then frantically start throwing money at the problem. Oh well. Yep. That is the main point for me! The larger the transition phase, the smoother... starting as soon as possible will cause less pain for everybody... >From the cost point of view: + IPv6 should be seen as an evolution of current IP version 4. People that understand IP version 4 (network admins) should also learn easily IP version 6. Unfortunately IPv6 is often referred to as "a new technology", but in the end... it is not. It is (only?) the plain old IP, with some improvements... + On the "vendor front". IPv6 should be seen also as the natural evolution on IP technology. If any vendor wished to keep their share in the IP market, they should be able to support it, without any significant extra cost for customers. However... i dont really think the hardware factor is nowadays a serious problem for people currently building dual-stack networks (yes, in some parts of the world, people are doing it!!!) To conclude, nobody (i think) wishes to end IPv4 addresses anywhere in the years to follow... Regards, ./Carlos -- IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (135072/470), naming (millions) and... people!"
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As co-chair of the multi6 WG : On 2004-04-19, at 02.29, william(at)elan.net wrote: > Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not > attractive > at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100 > years > is not an option in my view - we just need to put more effort on things > like multihoming support for ipv6 (and its not an unsolvable problem, > the > cell phone companies are somehow able to deal with greatly increasing > number > of phones and use of cell phones and roaming works quite well, for me > almost everywhere at least). No, it's not an unsolvable problem. The multi6 WG will in a few weeks have a architectural analysis draft published, going through the various proposals that have been made (and they are a lot). The discussion that is due to follow will need all input it can get. I do encourage people to subscribe to the mailinglist and join that discussion! Best regards, - - kurtis - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQIWIs6arNKXTPFCVEQLU/wCdFxVLrTswwUL5GQgei+sfuYTJPfwAoNzw o1GimcbzYp72ngq16PI44Jws =+GuV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not >> attractive >> at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100 >> years >> is not an option in my view - we just need to put more effort on >> things >> like multihoming support for ipv6 (and its not an unsolvable problem, >> the >> cell phone companies are somehow able to deal with greatly increasing >> number >> of phones and use of cell phones and roaming works quite well, for me >> almost everywhere at least). > > No, it's not an unsolvable problem. The multi6 WG will in a few weeks > have a architectural analysis draft published, going through the > various proposals that have been made (and they are a lot). The > discussion that is due to follow will need all input it can get. I do > encourage people to subscribe to the mailinglist and join that > discussion! As was pointed out to me, I forgot to say how to subscribe : http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html - - kurtis - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQIYY96arNKXTPFCVEQL6QACfURBnmYcuW3AKkK9iZv5cKGGpg8wAn2r9 iqUyPzs6GC7qwj/TDr8Ku7E0 =3n0f -END PGP SIGNATURE-
