Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Pete Stevens]

Unfortunately the same applies to the majority of consumers, who realistically 
don't care how their internet works as long
as they can access Facebook/Candy Crush/.


A v6 only end user ISP can already access anything behind cloudflare,
facebook, google, youtube, netflix but not twitter.

I wonder what the absolute minimum set if before $ultra-cheap-broken-isp
just goes ipv6+nat64 and doesn't care about breaking other stuff. Free 
broadband that comes with your mobile contract / cornflakes could be a 
candidate.


Of course once one does it, there's then a huge incentive for the
content providers to follow suit making it much more plausible. Question
is, how hard do you bet against nobody being willing to push the domino
over?

Pete

--
Pete Stevens
p...@ex-parrot.com
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/
https://www.mythic-beasts.com/
https://twitter.com/Mythic_Beasts

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Pete Stevens]

DNS64/NAT64?


Ou experience is limited to server applications, but these rarely
initiate outbound conections (since the clients almost never have
routable public IPv4 addresses anyway) and almost everything is https so
this works really well.


3 problems with DNS64:
-Wider DNSSEC adoption has the potential to make DNS64 unpalatable (it breaks 
the security).

Agreed. I think that having one or more of the public security type
checkers require DNSSEC and IPv6 for a perfect score would help a lot
here. Implementing v6 + DNSSEC is less work than writing a document to
explain to $boring_law_firm why you have an A- score for security.


-IP Address literals are still a pain (literals from bad coding appears to be 
receding, but some devs are still using this for perceived security/ease of 
session management?)


I'd add hand rolled sad eyeballs implementations.

if (A lookup succeeds ) { connect over v4 or die } 
else { try  lookup ) { connect over v6 }


is remarkably common. I think we also need a free dns resolver that does
nat64 and actively blocks A record lookups to 'fix' the dumb client
applications.


-The range of "unknown devices types" (consumer electronics) on the WiFi are 
what kills DNS64/NAT64 for commercial ISPs - or to put it another way, with no IPv4 on 
the Wifi then something like half the 4K TVs in the UK will stop streaming. Would you pay 
for an ISP service where you don't know whether all your devices in your home will work?


No. And I'm well known for being an IPv6 only proponent. Crappy
connectivity will do, if my v4 only smart plug waits 30s before turing
on because it has to poll the server versus instant for my v6 one that
can have an inbound trigger, v6 land is better than v4 land which
provides consumer incentive to go there.


My 2 cents: Rather than looking at ISPs as the sole "IPv6-only gatekeeper" who 
can set the tempo here, turn your gaze to the worlds of consumer electronics, and ask why 
CE hardware still comes v4 only. That's the blocker. Until then, use a real or a fake v4.


Every time someone rolls v6 + 464xlat the v6 native devices get a better
serivce, and the v6 devices are cheaper to support by the ISP due to
reduced CGNAT costs and reduced v4 address costs in the CGNAT device.

I view the v6 transition like the how to get rid of IE6 transition. For
years and years Webdevs involved extra pain to make sites IE6 compatible
(and this was more pain that network engineers have with v4). Eventually
XP was end of life, it had a security flaw that wasn't fixed, corporates
could point and go 'doesn't meet security checklist, not supported' and
I think youtube stopped working. Once one big player moved to stop
support, everyone else followed. Any application that can be accessed by
XP today will get a big security fail in an audit.

We can't do this yet, 30% IPv6 isn't high enough. 70% in a given country
might be for limited applications and that's getting close in some
territories. Our smarter ISPs who offer v6 even with v4 per customer are
at least future proofing themselves against this - imagine a new version
of mincraft drops tomorrow and it only supports multiplayer if you all
have v6. Some ISPs go 'great', some go 'upgrade your router', others go
'bye, other ISPs are available and would love to have your custom'. I
think it's very unlikely, but other unlikely things include nationwide
pandemics that cause a wholesale move of the entire country to home
working. Do you feel lucky?


Right now v6 only public facing services aren't saleable, however ssh only
accessible over v6 with http/https over dual stack is appealing to some.
Our Pi cloud mean that a small number of future engineers are growing up
v6 native and I would *love* to be a fly on the wall on their first day
in the office when someone explains to them why NAT is brilliant and
badly solves all the problems they've never imagined could exist.

Pete

--
Pete Stevens
p...@ex-parrot.com
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/
https://www.mythic-beasts.com/
https://twitter.com/Mythic_Beasts

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Tim Bray]

On 25/05/2020 20:02, Paul Mansfield wrote:

Looking back at Y2K, would all that effort have been put in to kill
off old services and tidy up all the cr*p if there hadn't been a fixed
deadline? As to the Jan 19 2038 problem, how many of us hope to be
retired by then, or will we be dragged out of retirement?!



That's not actually 100% true. There was a look of activity and a 
lot of IT refresh. But a lot blundered on.


In 2006 I was in my local hospital and watched my friend working at a PC 
with a sticker on it saying `not Y2K compliant, not the be used after 
1st Jan 2020'


A company I did some work for spent £45k on a new manufacturing system. 
The supplier would not certify as Y2K compliant.  And then when they 
realised the old one still worked, they used the old one


What I'm getting at, is that


Personally. I've been pestering suppliers for IPv6 for over 12 years.  
Some delivered, some haven't.  There are people buying devices today 
they probably expect to last 10 years, which can't do IPv6.



On 26/05/2020 09:33, Tom Bird wrote:


The 3 men and a dog local IT companies that set their shitty draytek 
router up don't understand it.


Yes, they turn it off.   No business need.    And breaks dual WAN 
failover from 2 consumer ISPs.    And really easy to login to the 
printer by typing 192.168.1.27.   Really hard to remember 
2001:678:424:b201:70c9:54ff:fe8a:68bf.   (I've taken my printers away 
from IPv6 for this exact reason)


(one of my friends is tech lead at an IT installations company. He wants 
to test IPv6 incase a customer asks.  But neither his co-lo provider 
(zen) or leased line provider (talk talk) will do IPv6.  (I'll sort him 
some VPN))






On the other hand if you enable it on things like student halls and 
public wifi hotspots then it takes a *lot* of the load off your NAT 
devices and this is really great.



I agree.  I think this one of the true business drivers. Dual stack 
saves IPv4 nat ports.  And I think a single point of failure for many 
networks.


Ditto for the mobile networks doing 464 xlat.   You get IPv6, facebook 
and google goes V6, way less ports in CGNAT.    This is working on my 
Three mobile iPhone today, in the UK and just works.  And not something 
I asked for.   (might not be xlat, but looks like it.  I don't think it 
is NAT64, because DNS lookups seem ok.  I've working v6 and v4 with no 
v4 IP address.)


I think Mythic beasts have proved that IPv4 addresses per server not 
strictly necessary for hosting websites which are still accessible over 
IPv4.  Again, a business reason to save cost. And CDNs can offer content 
on IPv6 only hosts as consumer IPv6 takes off; More hosts on IPv6 than IPv4.


The other one is the really big companies.   They want IPv6 to avoid 
overlapping RFC1918 networks.    If you include government in that, then 
it might push devices to support IPv6.



So there are ways for content hosters to  save IPv4 addresses. And ways 
for eyeball networks to save IPv4 addresses.   And there will always be 
some website not on IPv4.  And some ISP that doesn't offer IPv6, and 
some installer who turns off IPv6


And as such, there are many ways to stretch out IPv4.  As the value of 
IPv4 space goes up, more people might find ways to release what they 
don't need.


And I don't know what the answer looks like.


--
Tim Bray
Huddersfield, GB
t...@kooky.org
+44 7966479015

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Leo Vegoda]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:02 AM Per Bilse  wrote:
>
> Daniel Karrenberg (founder/CTO RIPE NCC) has for decades said "I sell IP 
> address space".  The price has historically been low, but it has always been 
> a finite resource, and that goes for IPv6 address space too (when the RIPE 
> NCC opened up for IPv6 address space, it took half an hour to receive enough 
> requests to exhaust the entire IPv6 address space.)

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. But I don't think the
RIPE NCC has ever had so many requests for IPv6 that it would take all
the IPv6 space for the very simple reason that there isn't enough
network to justify it.

The RIRs collectively took a couple of years to get 100 requests for
IPv6 /35s, back in the day. I remember preparing the announcement that
we had hit that policy milestone.

Now, there is a settled policy for IPv6 allocations to ISPs and each
of the RIRs get a /12 allocation from the IANA from a /3. Those /12s
last a long time and there are enough /12s in that /3 that even if
each RIR needed one a year it would take a century to allocate them
all.

Re: [uknof] Reminder: UKNOF respect policy

[Keith Mitchell]

And we are living in extraordinary times, when going the extra mile
beyond basic professional respect and courtesy counts for a lot.

Taking a bit of a meta step back from on-topic:

I've seen a few articles along the following lines recently, looking
into the research psychology of long-term isolation on people, here's a
couple for instance:


https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/coronavirus-covid19-isolation-third-quarter-phenomenon-has-begun/12190270

https://www.ft.com/content/eb056344-9b80-11ea-871bedeb99a20c6e  
(paywalled)

I don't think anyone really knows how far into this we are or have to go
exactly, but much of this research is still relevant. TL;DR: "people get
weirdest from isolation when they get past the perceived half-way mark".

This is a difficult time for many, and if we could as a community all be
that bit more mindful of others, our own mental state, and of the
shortcomings of online interaction not mitigated by F2F gathering,
/before/ we hit the "F-key", I think it would serve us well.

Thank you to everyone keeping the discussion civil and (returning you
to..) on-topic.

Keith



On 5/23/20 10:42 AM, Denesh Bhabuta :: UKNOF wrote:

> I do not like doing this, but I guess a reminder is due..
> 
> *Anyone* who participates in UKNOF (be it the meetings or this list 
> or whatever other forms collaboration / discussion) must abide by the
> UKNOF Respect Policy (ie, code of conduct)
> 
> 

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Christian]

Steve Deering's Hourglass presentation is still a classic. Whether you 
use v4 or v6. That's a nice recollection of him and 1997.


The thing is by 2000 we had to run with IPv6 transition plan because 
there was zero chance of getting a v6 that was v4 wire compatible 
through the IETF. That plan depended on so many free IPv4 space that the 
transition had to happen early or it would become "too late" and then 
we'd end up with a gatewayed portal internetwork. That would be really 
bad news for a rich ecosystem of ISPs and Application services.


Of course that was all before "the Cloud", Google, Amazon, Facebook, 
. and CDNs.


If anything the CFOs of ISPs and network service providers should be 
looking  not just at the cost of IP addresses including implementation 
but the risk cost of not having them. This has been a hard sell because 
of the very short time horizons of current business practices and 
investor demands.


best Christian

On 26/05/2020 12:03, Per Bilse wrote:
I'm certainly not opposed to making technical progress.  I once 
arranged a full day's workshop hosted by Steve Deering to evangelize, 
but I have come to realize that it was 20+ years too early.  (Amusing 
anecdote: it wasn't really on Deering's radar to do these things, but 
he had trouble getting a hotel room for the Munich IETF meeting in 
1997, and I offered him mine.  He thought that was very generous, and 
gladly agreed.)


It's just practical reality, and spending more time and energy on IPv6 
won't get far up any significant chain of command.  By way of example, 
consider the BGP3->BGP4 and CIDR transition.  I once shared the 
questionable honour of announcing more unaggregatable prefixes than 
any other AS in the world, and everybody everywhere knew where things 
were heading.  Still, the project didn't gain real momentum until all 
the world's AGS+ routers started keeling over due to running out of 
memory, and that was with all the goodwill and cooperative spirit 
inherent in an Internet where NSFNET access was the holy grail of 
connectivity.


Money talks, it's that simple.  Until the current state of affairs 
becomes less profitable (one way or another), the current state will 
prevail.


I don't know why you think I'm being critical of the KAME project; I 
most certainly am not, and I specifically point out that it's probably 
the most widely known and used IPv6 code base.  If I'm being critical, 
it's of the world at large (think big and share the love :-)  The 
world has arguably failed to follow up on the momentum IPv6 had at the 
time, but things probably couldn't have gone any other way, and 
there's still some way to go.


Best,

  -- Per


On Monday, 25 May 2020, 17:24:43 BST, Christian  
wrote:



Dear Per,

When is too late now?  The  original transition plans had to be 
revised at IETF around 2008 largely because it was only "just before 
it's too late". So there has been a reprieve of a hard withdrawl for 
an extra 12 years. But can you say now when would you know if you left 
it just before too late again? Or when it is actually too late!?


There are plenty of folk who have been engaging in IPv6 issues 
collectively in Fora, TaskForces, Readiness activities. ISOC has its 
360 Deploy team. All take a strong interest in unpicking  the detail 
and distribute clue as to the detail of how to do things better. UKNOF 
has also been a pioneering place that has always been open to engaging 
on IPv6.


Personally I don't think we can or should talk about The Internet 
going IPv6 native as if there is some kind of future NCP/TCP cut off 
repeat. We need to live with and build on what we have.


best


Christian

NB Ito Jun is unable of course to defend himself and WIDE Kame now. I 
would just say that he provided every opportunity for you to build on 
that code and rather than sniping at it twenty five years on. It would 
be great to see acknowledgement of the enormous contribution that was 
made openly to the benefit of the Internet communities from that team 
and build from it.




On 25/05/2020 10:17, Per Bilse wrote:

When I saw this thread starting I thought to myself "No, no, no ... 
this will never end well."  I decided to stay out of it, but Neil 
raised an important point, namely that things are more complicated 
than what meets the eye.  The state of IPv6 software in the field 
isn't good, and much of it dates back to the early years of this 
century, or even late last century.  There was great enthusiasm and a 
flurry of activity when IPv6 first saw the light of day, but the 
endurance of IPv4 combined with a steady stream of routine, everyday 
issues meant that IPv6 started taking a back seat after just a few 
years.  I keep telling this story about a journalist asking me "When 
will the Internet change to IPv6?", to which I replied "Just before 
it's too late"; it wasn't what he was expecting to hear, but it was a 
reflection of daily reality in a commercial environment, and that 
hasn't 

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[nick.heatley]

Paul,
There is some resources on the UK v6 Council website regarding v6 transition 
tech.
https://www.ipv6.org.uk/2018/10/26/ipv6-transition-workshop-sep-2018/

The v6 business case for EE using 464xlat can be paraphrased as:
We need NAT, with 464xlat for every 100G of ISP traffic I need only 30G of NAT 
(NAT64 in this case) as 70% of the cellular handset traffic is IPv6 direct*. 
For an IPv4-only solution, then its 100G NAT for 100G.
Any ISP facing into NAT should weigh this up.
*For fixed line this ratio is sadly not 70%, perhaps more like 40%.
Giving NAT-free access is a superior service to us engineers, but to be honest, 
the average customer does not care.

DNS64/NAT64?
It can work for internal networks and guest wifi. I don't know of any 
commercial ISP using DNS64/NAT64?
Paying customers exposed to IPv4 shortages need 464xlat, MAP-T/MAP-E, or any 
other transition tech that fakes an IPv4 connection.
3 problems with DNS64:
-Wider DNSSEC adoption has the potential to make DNS64 unpalatable (it breaks 
the security).
-IP Address literals are still a pain (literals from bad coding appears to be 
receding, but some devs are still using this for perceived security/ease of 
session management?)
-The range of "unknown devices types" (consumer electronics) on the WiFi are 
what kills DNS64/NAT64 for commercial ISPs - or to put it another way, with no 
IPv4 on the Wifi then something like half the 4K TVs in the UK will stop 
streaming. Would you pay for an ISP service where you don't know whether all 
your devices in your home will work?

My 2 cents: Rather than looking at ISPs as the sole "IPv6-only gatekeeper" who 
can set the tempo here, turn your gaze to the worlds of consumer electronics, 
and ask why CE hardware still comes v4 only. That's the blocker. Until then, 
use a real or a fake v4.
Regards,
Nick


-Original Message-
From: uknof  On Behalf Of Paul Mansfield
Sent: 26 May 2020 15:14
To: Leo Vegoda ; UK Network Operators Forum 

Cc: Per Bilse ; Paul Bone ; 
Christian 
Subject: Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet 
connections by 2026

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 14:55, Leo Vegoda  wrote:
> Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can 
> make do with fewer addresses.

we're coming back to full circle to the suggestion where businesses should list 
IPv4 as a taxable asset, or, like DNS, should have to pay the registries like 
Ripe etc an annual cost to "maintain" their Ipv4 holding.

Meanwhile, are there any ISPs who run a DNS64/NAT64 as a service? It strikes me 
that it would be a good exercise/practise.

google have run public dns64 for probably at least 4 years, guessing from the 
date of this document:
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns64

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Tue May 26, 2020 at 03:42:40PM +0100, Paul Thornton wrote:
> I don't think there is an easy solution to any of this

There may be tweeks that could help it along.

One would be regulation in some manner, eg it becomes part
of the regulations a biz may be subject to, or a requirement
if they receive government funding (such as the various broadband
vouchers), or equipment import regulations (CEv6)

They could be low intrusion ways to ensure it's possible to
transition sooner. The sooner you do them the less stuff is
added to the legacy pile preventing it ever being considered.

We'd be pretty much there if this had been in place for
ipv6 day as a huge amount of consumer kit has been replaced
since then.

FTTC launched 25 January 2010
IPv6 day 8 June 2011

If you want it any sooner you have to pay (the analogue tv
switchover wasn't cheap but was helped by everyone wanting
flat TVs, find something to trojan it)

So to answer original question - set up a process that will
result in a date you can announce. 

brandon

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Keith Mitchell]

We had a mailman blockage last week which got fixed on Friday,
confirming all resolved now.

Keith


On 5/23/20 10:03 AM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Listmaster we appear to have IPV6 lag
> 
> Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=uknofmailman.vs.mythic-beasts.com)
>   by uknofmailman.vs.mythic-beasts.com with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
>   (envelope-from )
>   id 1jc6g3-0005eH-10; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:21:27 +0100
> Received: from mail-il1-x12c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c])
>  by uknofmailman.vs.mythic-beasts.com with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
>  (envelope-from ) id 1jazC1-0001zf-87
>  for uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Tue, 19 May 2020 11:09:49 +0100
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/05/2020, 10:43, "Paul Mansfield"  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 15:26, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> > > And whilst some on here seem to think that ridiculing peoples 
> opinions and suggestions is acceptable, I think that Paul (Mansfield) has 
> made a valid suggestion that deserves to be discussed in an adult manner.
> >
> > Sorry as its Friday, I actually thought Paul was trying to be funny!
> 
> except my email was sent on 19 May, Tuesday, three days before. 

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Paul Bone]

Some very valid points Paul, thanks for that.

I'm probably being a little guilty of focusing on the verticals that I
mostly work in with regard to the competitive element so yes I agree a moot
point at this stage - I have no interest in the residential market, and
with the way we deliver services (which I won't go into), we can compete
with the big players, and in fact we do offer services that are currently
unavailable on the mass market.

Yes, IPv4 acquisition does indeed need to be factored in, but if there are
none left or they become so scarce the price skyrockets then the startups
and small ISPs will struggle to survive and grow.

I am doing everything I can with the new network I am building to ensure we
can do as much IPv6 only services as possible to mitigate the paragraph
above as I believe that will happen.

Paul

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 15:44, Paul Thornton  wrote:

> On 26/05/2020 14:39, Paul Bone wrote:
>
> >
> > ISP A, for example, started up 2-3 years ago and received their /22
> > from RIPE but now, through growth they need more to service new
> > customers. They now have to pay a lot of money (in relative terms) to
> > obtain more IPv4 addresses. To pay for these IP addresses, ISP A needs
> > to either increase service prices or charge a significant amount for
> > each IPv4 address.
> >
> > ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a
> > waiting list for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4
> > services.
> >
> > Whereas large ISPs C, D and E, with their stock pile of IPv4 addresses
> > don't really care as it does not affect them, and can continue to
> > charge the same for the service and competition is then affected.
> > (Assumption made here)
>
> The reality for ISPs A and B is that acquisition of IPv4 addresses needs
> to be in their business plan as a cost from day one.  There is no way
> around this, and arguments about fairness, whilst understandable, are
> not going to change that.  C, D and E are not, in any way shape or form,
> going to start redistributing unused addresses to A and B.
>
> The argument about competition is also somewhat moot - the big providers
> can offer a cheaper service by virtue of scale to a degree, and also by
> bundling everything together in a convenient £29.99 a month package and
> using attractive offers.  A small broadband provider is likely not able
> to make that fly - so they have to have other value to attract
> customers, and not solely compete on price.  Yes, that's a big ask if
> you're trying to target the mass Internet access market but if you have
> other USPs going for you then the relative small increase in cost is
> tolerable.  If we assume that you don't want CGN (a wholly sane position
> to take in terms of initial cost and support woe), lets, for the sake of
> making the maths easy, assume that an IPv4 address costs £24 today.  If
> you cost that at £1 a month per connection, you've amortized that over 2
> years which is the default contract length for most consumer access
> products these days.  You've lowered your margin on the whole deal by
> £24, but you still have the IP address in month 25 and it is now paid
> for.  Now of course, you can't buy them piecemeal like this but worst
> case, buying a /24 at a time, you're looking at just over £6k.  In the
> running costs of even a smaller ISP, £6k isn't going to break the bank
> (or if it is, one could argue that the business has other worries).
>
> I've been involved in two ISP startups in the past year - one access and
> one predominantly hosting - where IPv4 acquisition costs have just been
> factored in as a cost of doing business on the Internet - much like
> rackspace, routers, connectivity and everything else.  In comparitive
> terms, the cost of IPv4 addresses have been one of the larger things to
> consider but not something that stopped either being viable.  It would
> indeed be nice to rewind a decade when we could just say "Hey RIPE,
> we've filled up this /19, can we have another one" but that ship has
> sailed, docked at several other ports, and is now well on its way
> elsewhere.
>
> Your ISP B is doomed to failure if it is sitting waiting for a returned
> v4 address allocation from RIPE, unable to offer service:  And that's
> essentially a business planning/investment failure not an IPv4 scarcity
> failure.
>
> Think about it this way.  Some of the most valuable spots of prime
> London real-estate were, back in the late 1940s, derilict bomb sites.
> The people who purchased those for pennies and held onto them have seen
> their investment value soar.  If I'm just entering the property business
> in 2020 should I be complaining that I need to charge my tenants a
> higher rent than my neighbours because they bought their freehold when
> it was a fraction of the cost and own it outright, whereas mine was
> expensive and is mortgaged up to the hilt?  It fails your fairness test,
> but it is just how it is.
>
> IPv6 is, to some extent, 

Re: [uknof] UK Colo w/ 4G

[LeeQ @ BitBahn.io]

Hi Nuno,


We at BitBahn run a ex MOD colo-datacentre north of Bedford. Multiple 
Providers, Flexible options. 4G is no problem.


Kind Regards


Lee


From: uknof  on behalf of Chris Wilkie 

Sent: 23 May 2020 19:20:52
To: Nuno Vieira; UKNOF Mailing List
Subject: Re: [uknof] UK Colo w/ 4G

Colocker (www.colocker.com) could be a good solution 
for you. For transparency, I’m part owner.

We also have some conventional rack space as well as lockers and are flexible 
about putting aerials either in the loft or outside.  There are already 4G and 
GPS aerials up there and I believe the work well.

On 23 May 2020, at 16:59, Nuno Vieira 
mailto:n...@hashpower.pt>> wrote:

Good afternoon from Portugal.

I am looking in behalf of a global customer for some company/folk that can help 
me on this in UK:

* 1U Colo for one Dell R230 (we would ship the box over via UPS)
* 1G port w/ 30TB monthly traffic
* /29 for server and idrac

... so this is the easy part.

now... this is for a 4G/LTE measurement provider, we need to place an USB HUB 
with some dongles and the place has to have good (or at least decent) 4G 
coverage.

Also we require the local company to arrange in our behalf 4G data service 
(preferable flat so no one runs into overages) for: EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.

The location doesnt quite have to be a proper datacentre (can be office space 
or something else secure), as long as it works and we have the network coverage 
so they run the typical measurements.  It is important however that the basics 
are assured, such as power, connectivity and also 4G coverage for all provider.

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Per Bilse]

 Daniel Karrenberg (founder/CTO RIPE NCC) has for decades said "I sell IP 
address space".  The price has historically been low, but it has always been a 
finite resource, and that goes for IPv6 address space too (when the RIPE NCC 
opened up for IPv6 address space, it took half an hour to receive enough 
requests to exhaust the entire IPv6 address space.)  It isn't uncommon for ISPs 
to charge for a static IPv4 address these days, and it may well be that one day 
the norm will be that you can have IPv6 for free (or, rather, included at no 
charge), pay something moderate for NATed IPv4, and a lot for static IPv4.
The fundamental point here is that as long as people are willing to pay for 
something, somebody will always offer it, but if it becomes too expensive, the 
market will develop alternatives, maybe even destroying the original market.
Consider another important Internet commodity, transit, aka global BGP 
reachability.  Once upon a time there were the big 6-7-8 American backbones who 
were transit free; they exchanged enough routing information between them for 
each one to have complete, global reachability, without paying each other 
anything (although that may be a bit murky in some cases).  Under the radar 
came one much smaller European backbone, AS286/EUnet, and managed to slip into 
the nest without anybody noticing; being transit free was the ultimate 
superpower status, and the existing networks guarded themselves very carefully. 
 Maybe I'm being too modest here, it was I who did it, but only by virtue of 
AS286 being the gateway to commercial Europe (I'm expecting Keith to ban me 
from the forum any time now); Nick was very much part of all of that too.
Who cares about BGP transit today?  These days transit is like electric power, 
it isn't something you put on the bill.  Hence, I'm wondering if it isn't so 
that the notion of connectivity (rooted in IP address space) will be redefined 
to the extent that the craving for address space will become a legacy 
consideration, much like BGP transit has.
Should've kept my trap shut.-)
Best,
  -- Per

On Tuesday, 26 May 2020, 14:39:12 BST, Paul Bone  
wrote:  
 
 I completely agree that the end user will generally have very little or no 
knowledge of how their connectivity is done underneath - as long as Whatsapp 
and Facebook work, then most are happy!
But I do think the case for hanging onto IPv4 is potentially very damaging to 
the ISP industry, and I will probably be repeating myself from recent weeks.
ISP A, for example, started up 2-3 years ago and received their /22 from RIPE 
but now, through growth they need more to service new customers. They now have 
to pay a lot of money (in relative terms) to obtain more IPv4 addresses. To pay 
for these IP addresses, ISP A needs to either increase service prices or charge 
a significant amount for each IPv4 address. 
ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a waiting list 
for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 services.
Whereas large ISPs C, D and E, with their stock pile of IPv4 addresses don't 
really care as it does not affect them, and can continue to charge the same for 
the service and competition is then affected. (Assumption made here)
All industries need to encourage startups and small businesses but hanging onto 
IPv4 would massively affect our industries ability to do that - which is 
already happening.
The service providers could all work together to sort this mess, but 
unfortunately there is always more at play so maybe we do need legislation to 
force it to happen in a phased and controlled manner.
And I completely accept that others will have a different view to myself!
Paul
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 14:18, Per Bilse  wrote:

 I think it's a case of the notion of connectivity being changed faster than 
many other things.  How connectivity is achieved is ultimately not important to 
most people, and which addressing scheme is used is a detail hardly anybody 
even knows about.
When I first got involved, I didn't have IP connectivity at all; I had UUCP 
email and news ("We used to !, but now we @").  Then I got FTP via email, a new 
world.  Then I got IP, globally routed IP, on my pizza box (later to be a shoe 
box), yet another new world; you could use 'talk' (a command line, 
curses-windowed chat) across the Internet if you knew the other guy's IP 
address, how cool is that?  Then I got WWW/HTTP (and DNS), yet again a new 
world.  Each world introduced a new addressing scheme, another way to specify 
where you want to go.  (There was also a parallel universe where things were 
called X.something, but nobody went there.)
Then I got NAT'ed IP; not a new world, but a big change in connectivity 
semantics, yet with little change in usefulness.  Now ... well, how many 
regular punters know what they've got?
If you look at how connectivity is shaped in people's daily lives, most of them 
don't know they have an IP address.  Most don't even use a 

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Paul Thornton]

On 26/05/2020 14:39, Paul Bone wrote:



ISP A, for example, started up 2-3 years ago and received their /22 
from RIPE but now, through growth they need more to service new 
customers. They now have to pay a lot of money (in relative terms) to 
obtain more IPv4 addresses. To pay for these IP addresses, ISP A needs 
to either increase service prices or charge a significant amount for 
each IPv4 address.


ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a 
waiting list for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 
services.


Whereas large ISPs C, D and E, with their stock pile of IPv4 addresses 
don't really care as it does not affect them, and can continue to 
charge the same for the service and competition is then affected. 
(Assumption made here)


The reality for ISPs A and B is that acquisition of IPv4 addresses needs 
to be in their business plan as a cost from day one.  There is no way 
around this, and arguments about fairness, whilst understandable, are 
not going to change that.  C, D and E are not, in any way shape or form, 
going to start redistributing unused addresses to A and B.


The argument about competition is also somewhat moot - the big providers 
can offer a cheaper service by virtue of scale to a degree, and also by 
bundling everything together in a convenient £29.99 a month package and 
using attractive offers.  A small broadband provider is likely not able 
to make that fly - so they have to have other value to attract 
customers, and not solely compete on price.  Yes, that's a big ask if 
you're trying to target the mass Internet access market but if you have 
other USPs going for you then the relative small increase in cost is 
tolerable.  If we assume that you don't want CGN (a wholly sane position 
to take in terms of initial cost and support woe), lets, for the sake of 
making the maths easy, assume that an IPv4 address costs £24 today.  If 
you cost that at £1 a month per connection, you've amortized that over 2 
years which is the default contract length for most consumer access 
products these days.  You've lowered your margin on the whole deal by 
£24, but you still have the IP address in month 25 and it is now paid 
for.  Now of course, you can't buy them piecemeal like this but worst 
case, buying a /24 at a time, you're looking at just over £6k.  In the 
running costs of even a smaller ISP, £6k isn't going to break the bank 
(or if it is, one could argue that the business has other worries).


I've been involved in two ISP startups in the past year - one access and 
one predominantly hosting - where IPv4 acquisition costs have just been 
factored in as a cost of doing business on the Internet - much like 
rackspace, routers, connectivity and everything else.  In comparitive 
terms, the cost of IPv4 addresses have been one of the larger things to 
consider but not something that stopped either being viable.  It would 
indeed be nice to rewind a decade when we could just say "Hey RIPE, 
we've filled up this /19, can we have another one" but that ship has 
sailed, docked at several other ports, and is now well on its way 
elsewhere.


Your ISP B is doomed to failure if it is sitting waiting for a returned 
v4 address allocation from RIPE, unable to offer service:  And that's 
essentially a business planning/investment failure not an IPv4 scarcity 
failure.


Think about it this way.  Some of the most valuable spots of prime 
London real-estate were, back in the late 1940s, derilict bomb sites.  
The people who purchased those for pennies and held onto them have seen 
their investment value soar.  If I'm just entering the property business 
in 2020 should I be complaining that I need to charge my tenants a 
higher rent than my neighbours because they bought their freehold when 
it was a fraction of the cost and own it outright, whereas mine was 
expensive and is mortgaged up to the hilt?  It fails your fairness test, 
but it is just how it is.


IPv6 is, to some extent, still currently a technical solution for an 
economics / business problem - as others have said, the only point at 
which v6 will be used in anger is when it is cheaper for large 
organisations to do that over sticking with v4.  As Per said, the 
majority of customers really don't give two hoots what underlying 
protocol they are using to reach Facebook - to them it is "the wifi" and 
the actual mechanisms are irrelevant.  Likewise, any large enterprise 
customer is proabably very happy using RFC1918 space internally, 
understands enough about routing to make that work between sites, and 
don't have a need for IPv6.  They are not techies on ukno[tf] - they 
will have real work to do, and an employer who won't see the value in 
converting the entire corporate network to IPv6 because that's the 
latest Intenet addressing protocol.  Now some places, if faced with some 
major reworking, are indeed adding v6 into their new architecture and 
that makes a lot of sense; but these still 

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Paul Bone]

> Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
> make do with fewer addresses.

>The good news at the moment is that the RIPE waiting list is quite short:

This is still very short sighted and not sustainable for business growth.

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 15:06, Rob Evans  wrote:

>
> >> ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a
> waiting list for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 services.
> >
> > Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
> > make do with fewer addresses.
>
> The good news at the moment is that the RIPE waiting list is quite short:
>
> 
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>

-- 
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Paul Mansfield]

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 14:55, Leo Vegoda  wrote:
> Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
> make do with fewer addresses.

we're coming back to full circle to the suggestion where businesses
should list IPv4 as a taxable asset, or, like DNS, should have to pay
the registries like Ripe etc an annual cost to "maintain" their Ipv4
holding.

Meanwhile, are there any ISPs who run a DNS64/NAT64 as a service? It
strikes me that it would be a good exercise/practise.

google have run public dns64 for probably at least 4 years, guessing
from the date of this document:
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns64

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Rob Evans]

ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a waiting list 
for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 services.


Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
make do with fewer addresses.


The good news at the moment is that the RIPE waiting list is quite short:



Cheers,
Rob

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Leo Vegoda]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:41 AM Paul Bone  wrote:

[...]

> ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a waiting list 
> for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 services.

Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
make do with fewer addresses.

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Paul Bone]

I completely agree that the end user will generally have very little or no
knowledge of how their connectivity is done underneath - as long as
Whatsapp and Facebook work, then most are happy!

But I do think the case for hanging onto IPv4 is potentially very damaging
to the ISP industry, and I will probably be repeating myself from recent
weeks.

ISP A, for example, started up 2-3 years ago and received their /22 from
RIPE but now, through growth they need more to service new customers. They
now have to pay a lot of money (in relative terms) to obtain more IPv4
addresses. To pay for these IP addresses, ISP A needs to either increase
service prices or charge a significant amount for each IPv4 address.

ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a waiting
list for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 services.

Whereas large ISPs C, D and E, with their stock pile of IPv4 addresses
don't really care as it does not affect them, and can continue to charge
the same for the service and competition is then affected. (Assumption made
here)

All industries need to encourage startups and small businesses but hanging
onto IPv4 would massively affect our industries ability to do that - which
is already happening.

The service providers could all work together to sort this mess, but
unfortunately there is always more at play so maybe we do need legislation
to force it to happen in a phased and controlled manner.

And I completely accept that others will have a different view to myself!

Paul

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 14:18, Per Bilse  wrote:

> I think it's a case of the notion of connectivity being changed faster
> than many other things.  How connectivity is achieved is ultimately not
> important to most people, and which addressing scheme is used is a detail
> hardly anybody even knows about.
>
> When I first got involved, I didn't have IP connectivity at all; I had
> UUCP email and news ("We used to !, but now we @").  Then I got FTP via
> email, a new world.  Then I got IP, globally routed IP, on my pizza box
> (later to be a shoe box), yet another new world; you could use 'talk' (a
> command line, curses-windowed chat) across the Internet if you knew the
> other guy's IP address, how cool is that?  Then I got WWW/HTTP (and DNS),
> yet again a new world.  Each world introduced a new addressing scheme,
> another way to specify where you want to go.  (There was also a parallel
> universe where things were called X.something, but nobody went there.)
>
> Then I got NAT'ed IP; not a new world, but a big change in connectivity
> semantics, yet with little change in usefulness.  Now ... well, how many
> regular punters know what they've got?
>
> If you look at how connectivity is shaped in people's daily lives, most of
> them don't know they have an IP address.  Most don't even use a general
> purpose web browser (with DNS), they use an "app", whose means of
> connecting to a fixed server is entirely hidden.  It probably uses DNS,
> which resolves to IP, which maps to MAC, which maybe rides on whatever PPP
> or ATM or something else uses, but none of that is important.  No
> personal connectivity device needs an 'ifconfig' icon in order to work, and
> IPv4 vs IPv6 isn't important either; it isn't the addressing scheme people
> buy into, and that goes for the UKNOF audience too.  When did anybody last
> care about MAC addresses?  What if the ubiquitous 48bit MAC was replaced by
> something completely different?  As long as IPvN packets can be forwarded,
> it doesn't matter to anybody here.
>
> So, assuming the role of party pooper, I think there's a good case for
> IPv4 being here forever.  Whether connectivity is provided via IPv4 or IPv6
> or something else is a detail, and I don't think you can compare to Y2K or
> 2038; both of those come with a degree of certainty that a policy decision
> will never have.  I fully understand the frustration expressed by many
> people, but I think it's something that just comes with the job.
>
> Best,
>
>   -- Per
>
>
> On Tuesday, 26 May 2020, 01:11:25 BST, Paul Mansfield <
> paul+uk...@mansfield.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
> the only connectivity offered to the end user?  The thing is that
> without target dates and deadlines, things will drag on indefinitely.
> I'll admit I wanted to deliberately put up a challenging statement,
> but not to troll, really.  I genuinely want an answer to "is there a
> possible date?".
>
> Looking back at Y2K, would all that effort have been put in to kill
> off old services and tidy up all the cr*p if there hadn't been a fixed
> deadline? As to the Jan 19 2038 problem, how many of us hope to be
> retired by then, or will we be dragged out of retirement?!
>
> Ok, yes, there's a hell of a lot of legacy equipment in place which
> could still be there in five years, so perhaps five years isn't near
> enough for ipv4 use to have fallen into almost disuse. Do "we" 

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Per Bilse]

 I think it's a case of the notion of connectivity being changed faster than 
many other things.  How connectivity is achieved is ultimately not important to 
most people, and which addressing scheme is used is a detail hardly anybody 
even knows about.
When I first got involved, I didn't have IP connectivity at all; I had UUCP 
email and news ("We used to !, but now we @").  Then I got FTP via email, a new 
world.  Then I got IP, globally routed IP, on my pizza box (later to be a shoe 
box), yet another new world; you could use 'talk' (a command line, 
curses-windowed chat) across the Internet if you knew the other guy's IP 
address, how cool is that?  Then I got WWW/HTTP (and DNS), yet again a new 
world.  Each world introduced a new addressing scheme, another way to specify 
where you want to go.  (There was also a parallel universe where things were 
called X.something, but nobody went there.)
Then I got NAT'ed IP; not a new world, but a big change in connectivity 
semantics, yet with little change in usefulness.  Now ... well, how many 
regular punters know what they've got?
If you look at how connectivity is shaped in people's daily lives, most of them 
don't know they have an IP address.  Most don't even use a general purpose web 
browser (with DNS), they use an "app", whose means of connecting to a fixed 
server is entirely hidden.  It probably uses DNS, which resolves to IP, which 
maps to MAC, which maybe rides on whatever PPP or ATM or something else uses, 
but none of that is important.  No personal connectivity device needs an 
'ifconfig' icon in order to work, and IPv4 vs IPv6 isn't important either; it 
isn't the addressing scheme people buy into, and that goes for the UKNOF 
audience too.  When did anybody last care about MAC addresses?  What if the 
ubiquitous 48bit MAC was replaced by something completely different?  As long 
as IPvN packets can be forwarded, it doesn't matter to anybody here.
So, assuming the role of party pooper, I think there's a good case for IPv4 
being here forever.  Whether connectivity is provided via IPv4 or IPv6 or 
something else is a detail, and I don't think you can compare to Y2K or 2038; 
both of those come with a degree of certainty that a policy decision will never 
have.  I fully understand the frustration expressed by many people, but I think 
it's something that just comes with the job.
Best,
  -- Per

On Tuesday, 26 May 2020, 01:11:25 BST, Paul Mansfield 
 wrote:  
 
 So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
the only connectivity offered to the end user?  The thing is that
without target dates and deadlines, things will drag on indefinitely.
 I'll admit I wanted to deliberately put up a challenging statement,
but not to troll, really.  I genuinely want an answer to "is there a
possible date?".

Looking back at Y2K, would all that effort have been put in to kill
off old services and tidy up all the cr*p if there hadn't been a fixed
deadline? As to the Jan 19 2038 problem, how many of us hope to be
retired by then, or will we be dragged out of retirement?!

Ok, yes, there's a hell of a lot of legacy equipment in place which
could still be there in five years, so perhaps five years isn't near
enough for ipv4 use to have fallen into almost disuse. Do "we" still
want to be fighting with dual-stack networks, CGNAT, scrabbling to buy
ever more expensive IPv4 addresses etc indefinitely? Will 2038 also
mark a point where legacy systems have to be retired because of their
use of 32 bit math for dates and thus also retire non-ipv6 compliant
systems? Eighteen years seems a long way away?

  

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Paul Mansfield]

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 09:52, Daniel Ankers  wrote:
> The thing about Y2K and 2038 is that they are absolutely fixed dates.  No 
> amount of arguing or pleading would move them.  On the other hand, if a flag 
> day for IPv4 shutoff was chosen it would be arbitrary and could, if needed, 
> be moved.  While the vast majority of the internet is IPv4 first there will 
> be pressure to move the date (and I believe that pressure will be too strong 
> to resist), and if people think the date might be moved then they won't 
> migrate to IPv6.

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 12:17, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> ipv4 will fade when it becomes more expensive and troublesome than ipv6.

+1
look at the efforts to deprecate python2 and the number of times the
deadline has been pushed back.
and how much microsoft were able to charge for keeping windows 7 on
life support.

At the moment, having IPv4 is an externality for most customers of
ISPs, but if it becomes an explicit part of the bill, much like many
ISPs charge for static IPv4 addresses, then perhaps most customers
would accept having to use dns64/nat64 via their provider's nat64
gateway and that would accelerate the change?

I wonder how content filtering/logging for anti-piracy/illegal porn
will be affected by that, it will surely be harder to disentangle all
the customer IPv4 traffic?

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Will Hargrave]

On 26 May 2020, at 12:14, Nick Hilliard wrote:

ipv4 will fade when it becomes more expensive and troublesome than 
ipv6.  If we attempt to short-cut this process and kill ipv4 with 
policy and artificial deadlines, it will will fail just like it failed 
with the ISO / OSI debacle all those years ago.


Indeed.

Certainly there are operators who have a great deal of expertise in 
keeping legacy products alive long after others have moved on.  It could 
be that BT is the last remaining place you can get IPv4 internet from, 
at some distant point in the future. There will be a fault and they’ll 
have to pull Neil out of retirement to fix it. :-)

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Nick Hilliard]

Per Bilse wrote on 26/05/2020 12:03:
Money talks, it's that simple.  Until the current state of affairs 
becomes less profitable (one way or another), the current state will

prevail.

  this

ipv4 will fade when it becomes more expensive and troublesome than ipv6. 
 If we attempt to short-cut this process and kill ipv4 with policy and 
artificial deadlines, it will will fail just like it failed with the ISO 
/ OSI debacle all those years ago.


The fact that ipv4 is still with us is an extraordinary testament to its 
resilience.


Nick

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Per Bilse]

 I'm certainly not opposed to making technical progress.  I once arranged a 
full day's workshop hosted by Steve Deering to evangelize, but I have come to 
realize that it was 20+ years too early.  (Amusing anecdote: it wasn't really 
on Deering's radar to do these things, but he had trouble getting a hotel room 
for the Munich IETF meeting in 1997, and I offered him mine.  He thought that 
was very generous, and gladly agreed.)
It's just practical reality, and spending more time and energy on IPv6 won't 
get far up any significant chain of command.  By way of example, consider the 
BGP3->BGP4 and CIDR transition.  I once shared the questionable honour of 
announcing more unaggregatable prefixes than any other AS in the world, and 
everybody everywhere knew where things were heading.  Still, the project didn't 
gain real momentum until all the world's AGS+ routers started keeling over due 
to running out of memory, and that was with all the goodwill and cooperative 
spirit inherent in an Internet where NSFNET access was the holy grail of 
connectivity.
Money talks, it's that simple.  Until the current state of affairs becomes less 
profitable (one way or another), the current state will prevail.
I don't know why you think I'm being critical of the KAME project; I most 
certainly am not, and I specifically point out that it's probably the most 
widely known and used IPv6 code base.  If I'm being critical, it's of the world 
at large (think big and share the love :-)  The world has arguably failed to 
follow up on the momentum IPv6 had at the time, but things probably couldn't 
have gone any other way, and there's still some way to go.
Best,
  -- Per

On Monday, 25 May 2020, 17:24:43 BST, Christian  wrote: 
 
 
  
Dear Per,
 
When is too late now?  The  original transition plans had to be revised at IETF 
around 2008 largely because it was only "just before it's too late". So there 
has been a reprieve of a hard withdrawl for an extra 12 years. But can you say 
now when would you know if you left it just before too late again? Or when it 
is actually too late!?
 
 
There are plenty of folk who have been engaging in IPv6 issues collectively in 
Fora, TaskForces, Readiness activities. ISOC has its 360 Deploy team. All take 
a strong interest in unpicking  the detail and distribute clue as to the detail 
of how to do things better. UKNOF has also been a pioneering place that has 
always been open to engaging on IPv6. 
 
 
Personally I don't think we can or should talk about The Internet going IPv6 
native as if there is some kind of future NCP/TCP cut off repeat. We need to 
live with and build on what we have. 
 
 
best 
 
 

 
 
Christian
 
NB Ito Jun is unable of course to defend himself and WIDE Kame now. I would 
just say that he provided every opportunity for you to build on that code and 
rather than sniping at it twenty five years on. It would be great to see 
acknowledgement of the enormous contribution that was made openly to the 
benefit of the Internet communities from that team and build from it. 
 
 

 
 

 
 
On 25/05/2020 10:17, Per Bilse wrote:
 
 
   When I saw this thread starting I thought to myself "No, no, no ... this 
will never end well."  I decided to stay out of it, but Neil raised an 
important point, namely that things are more complicated than what meets the 
eye.  The state of IPv6 software in the field isn't good, and much of it dates 
back to the early years of this century, or even late last century.  There was 
great enthusiasm and a flurry of activity when IPv6 first saw the light of day, 
but the endurance of IPv4 combined with a steady stream of routine, everyday 
issues meant that IPv6 started taking a back seat after just a few years.  I 
keep telling this story about a journalist asking me "When will the Internet 
change to IPv6?", to which I replied "Just before it's too late"; it wasn't 
what he was expecting to hear, but it was a reflection of daily reality in a 
commercial environment, and that hasn't changed.  IPv6 remained a draft 
standard, accompanied by various additional RFCs and related documents, until 
it was finally consolidated in RFC8200 a few years ago; the process took nearly 
20 years, and the promotion to full standard was partly prompted by an 
administrative change in the RFC process. 
  Being stuck in the draft standard state isn't in itself unusual, and 
interoperability demands from the real world usually iron out any 
implementation bumps, but in this respect IPv6 has been in a backwater.  
Probably the most widely known and used IPv6 code base came out of the 
WIDE/KAME project, but much of it is literally 15-20+ years old, and hasn't 
been updated for over a decade.  Hence, by today there are dozens, or probably 
actually hundreds, of slightly diverging IPv6 implementations in various states 
of disrepair.  They trace their origins back to RFC2460 from 1998, but each 
will have incorporated its own blend of tweaks, fixes, and updates, some 

[uknof] virtualUKNOF May 2020 Presentation Videos now published

[Denesh Bhabuta :: UKNOF]

Hi all

Just a quick note - the recordings of the presentations at virtualUKNOF May 
2020 are now available online.

These are available at:



Each video is also linked to the corresponding agenda item at:



Our thanks to long term Partner, Bogons for the recording and post-processing.
 

=

[ SPONSORSHIP, PATRONAGE, FRIENDS OF UKNOF ]

Further details of these are available at:








UKNOF Patrons in 2020:

Principal: British Telecom, LONAP

Premium: Centurylink, Flexoptix, IPv4 Market Group, RIPE NCC

=

Best Regards
Denesh Bhabuta
UKNOF Events Plannager

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Daniel Ankers]

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 01:12, Paul Mansfield 
wrote:

> So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
> the only connectivity offered to the end user?  The thing is that
> without target dates and deadlines, things will drag on indefinitely.
>  I'll admit I wanted to deliberately put up a challenging statement,
> but not to troll, really.  I genuinely want an answer to "is there a
> possible date?".
>
>
The thing about Y2K and 2038 is that they are absolutely fixed dates.  No
amount of arguing or pleading would move them.  On the other hand, if a
flag day for IPv4 shutoff was chosen it would be arbitrary and could, if
needed, be moved.  While the vast majority of the internet is IPv4 first
there will be pressure to move the date (and I believe that pressure will
be too strong to resist), and if people think the date might be moved then
they won't migrate to IPv6.

To me, the next obvious step along the migration path will be people
setting up IPv6-only ISPs which use the savings from not deploying IPv4 to
reduce the cost for their customers.  Not all content is available over
IPv6 yet, but at some point there will be enough that the savings make
using IPv6 only (and losing access to large parts of the internet)
worthwhile - and that will start to put pressure on the IPv4-only content
to move.

Dan

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Paul Bone]

This is where managed service providers can make a difference.

My current day job is for a business ISP who also offers a lot of MSP
services.

IPv6 only services should be up and running for our guest and managed
services by the summer depending on current restrictions being lifted (have
equipment that needs installing in data centres).

But there still will be some customers that will require public IPv4 for
various reasons that have been discussed already.

It would be nice to have a cut off date though!

Would mean IT companies might actually need to learn about networking ;-)

The Draytek routers (why would anyone want a router that needs rebooting
for the slightest config change?!) are firewalled IPv6 by default though I
believe so might not be too much of an issue.

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 09:36, Tom Bird  wrote:

> On 25/05/2020 20:02, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> > So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
> > the only connectivity offered to the end user?
>
> No.
>
> Firstly, I'm a big IPv6 advocate, however...
>
> Secondly - with my business ISP hat on, businesses are only very, very
> rarely asking for it.
>
> The 3 men and a dog local IT companies that set their shitty draytek
> router up don't understand it.
>
> If I just go and turn it on without telling them and something gets a
> global IPv6 address that should be firewalled but isn't, and it gets
> compromised and they end up with a data breach or a load of fraud or
> something which damages their company, and then I might end up being
> pursued for damages.
>
> On the other hand if you enable it on things like student halls and
> public wifi hotspots then it takes a *lot* of the load off your NAT
> devices and this is really great.
>
> We're going to be in a v4/v6 mixed world for a long time yet and
> unfortunately you can't just wave a magic wand to change that.
>
> --
> Tom
>
> :: www.portfast.co.uk / @portfast
> :: hosted services, domains, virtual machines, consultancy
>
> --
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

Re: [uknof] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

[Tom Bird]

On 25/05/2020 20:02, Paul Mansfield wrote:

So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
the only connectivity offered to the end user?


No.

Firstly, I'm a big IPv6 advocate, however...

Secondly - with my business ISP hat on, businesses are only very, very 
rarely asking for it.


The 3 men and a dog local IT companies that set their shitty draytek 
router up don't understand it.


If I just go and turn it on without telling them and something gets a 
global IPv6 address that should be firewalled but isn't, and it gets 
compromised and they end up with a data breach or a load of fraud or 
something which damages their company, and then I might end up being 
pursued for damages.


On the other hand if you enable it on things like student halls and 
public wifi hotspots then it takes a *lot* of the load off your NAT 
devices and this is really great.


We're going to be in a v4/v6 mixed world for a long time yet and 
unfortunately you can't just wave a magic wand to change that.


--
Tom

:: www.portfast.co.uk / @portfast
:: hosted services, domains, virtual machines, consultancy