RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
> 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. This may mean that you are better off building an IPv6 overlay using tunnels over an IPv4 core, or using MPLS with 6PE. These are the sort of detailed questions that people should be asking their vendors now. Will you really be able to get the expected work lifetime out of the boxes that you are buying today? > 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. Lots of the USG and DOD folks are buying Hexago boxes which basically means that they are going to talk IPv6 to each other using tunnels over an IPv4 core network. --Michael Dillon
Recall: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R would like to recall the message, "cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]".
RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
--- Michael Dillon RadianzNet Capacity Forecast & Plan -- BT Design 66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030 http://www.btradianz.com Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Conrad > Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49 > To: Jamie Bowden > Cc: North American Network Operators Group > Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 > on SOHO routers?] > > > 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 > >
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
> 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: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
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?]
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?]
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?]
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: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
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?]
>> 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: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
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: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
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
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
--- 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?]
> 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?]
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?]
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?]
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?]
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?]
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?]
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
cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
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
