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

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 17:12, Brandon Butterworth  wrote:
> One would be regulation in some manner, eg it becomes part

Ofcom last mentioned ipv6 in 2017 as far as I can tell
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/search?query=ipv6=

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

maybe the Gov't gigabit/fibre voucher scheme?
https://gigabitvoucher.culture.gov.uk/

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

2020-05-27 Thread Pete Stevens


That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information about what 
improvements are needed. Netflix is listed,
but I've got no clue what they are expected to do to improve their v6 
connectivity.


Netflix use Google for email, and Google are missing some reverse DNS on
their IPv6 addresses.

e.g. from Mythic I see

$ dig aspmx3.googlemail.com  +short
2404:6800:4003:c06::1a
$ dig -x 2404:6800:4003:c06::1a +short
$

from IDNet I see
$ dig aspmx3.googlemail.com  +short
2a00:1450:4010:c03::1a
$ dig -x 2a00:1450:4010:c03::1a +short
lr-in-x1a.1e100.net.
$ dig lr-in-x1a.1e100.net  +short
2a00:1450:4010:c03::1a


The first fails our checker

https://www.mythic-beasts.com/ipv6/health-check?domain=netflix.com=#test-details-mailserver-reverse-dns

so Netflix get 10/11.

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

ah, bbc.co.uk does have IPv6 addresses

$ dig +short  bbc.co.uk
2a04:4e42:200::81
2a04:4e42:600::81
2a04:4e42:400::81
2a04:4e42::81

but not www.bbc.co.uk which is CNAME to bbc.net.uk

according to the SOA for bbc.net.uk there should be a b...@bbc.co.uk
who can answer why!

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

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:56, Paul Bone  wrote:
> C:\Users\paul.bone>nslookup www.bbc.co.uk

I seem to recall the BBC did have a v6 enabled front end at one point.
presumably the licence fee needs to increase before they can afford to
run both ;-)

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

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:56, Dave Bell  wrote:
>> https://ipv6.watch/
>
> That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information about 
> what improvements are needed. Netflix is listed, but I've got no clue what 
> they are expected to do to improve their v6 connectivity.

agreed. I followed the github link, so I guess you can spin up a
version with more diagnostics?
https://github.com/andir/ipv6.watch

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

2020-05-27 Thread Paul Bone

This is one that has always surprised me:

C:\Users\paul.bone>nslookup www.bbc.co.uk
Server:  UnKnown
Address:  10.234.120.1

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:www.bbc.net.uk
Addresses:  212.58.237.254
  212.58.233.254
Aliases:  www.bbc.co.uk



On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:54, Paul Mansfield 
wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 22:59, Pete Stevens  wrote:
> > A v6 only end user ISP can already access anything behind cloudflare,
> > facebook, google, youtube, netflix but not twitter.
>
> I was surprised how many services aren't but you'd think they could/should
> be
> https://ipv6.watch/
>
>

-- 
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

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

2020-05-27 Thread Dave Bell

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:49, Paul Mansfield 
wrote:

> I was surprised how many services aren't but you'd think they could/should
> be
> https://ipv6.watch/

That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information about
what improvements are needed. Netflix is listed, but I've got no clue what
they are expected to do to improve their v6 connectivity.

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

2020-05-27 Thread Nick Hilliard


Paul Mansfield wrote on 27/05/2020 11:47:

I was surprised how many services aren't but you'd think they could/should be
https://ipv6.watch/


this should give some indication of the complexity, and therefore the 
cost, of service availability over ipv6.


Nick

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

2020-05-27 Thread Jonathan McDowell

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:59:28PM +0100, Pete Stevens wrote:
> > 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 broke v4 on my wired lan last week (rogue DHCP server on a development
OpenWRT box) and it was 15 hours before I noticed (admittedly part of
that I was asleep). It was Twitter that made me investigate, everything
else (ssh, email, whatever other websites I was looking at) was all
fine.

Last time I ran numbers (about 6 months ago) 50% of my home traffic went
over v6 (without any attempt to coerce traffic to prefer it over v4).

J.

-- 
Revd Jonathan McDowell, ULC | I'm only here for the salad bar.

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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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] Thought for the day: announce the end of IPv4 internet connections by 2026

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

> 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

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

2020-05-26 Thread 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

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

2020-05-25 Thread Paul Mansfield

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

2020-05-25 Thread Christian


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 from RFCs and errata, 
some from I-Ds, and some from in-house developments.  Few, if any, are 
ready for prime time in the way IPv4 is, and while they all generally 
work, IPv6 simply doesn't have the tightly knit development and 
interoperability history that IPv4 has.


So ... when will the Internet go IPv6 native?  Maybe never.  It's a 
commercial issue, and there are no overarching considerations at play: 
IPv4 doesn't cause global warming, and the ozone layer is safe too. 
Hence, nobody is likely to spend time and energy on IPv6 until doing 
so becomes a source of revenue, and that will in the first instance 
mean the whole world catching up with two decades of neglect.


  -- Per

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

2020-05-25 Thread Nick Hilliard


Per Bilse wrote on 25/05/2020 10:17:
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.


and we're still working through protocol bugs introduced in rfc8200 :-(

Nick

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

2020-05-25 Thread Per Bilse

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 from 
RFCs and errata, some from I-Ds, and some from in-house developments.  Few, if 
any, are ready for prime time in the way IPv4 is, and while they all generally 
work, IPv6 simply doesn't have the tightly knit development and 
interoperability history that IPv4 has.
So ... when will the Internet go IPv6 native?  Maybe never.  It's a commercial 
issue, and there are no overarching considerations at play: IPv4 doesn't cause 
global warming, and the ozone layer is safe too.  Hence, nobody is likely to 
spend time and energy on IPv6 until doing so becomes a source of revenue, and 
that will in the first instance mean the whole world catching up with two 
decades of neglect.
  -- Per

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

2020-05-23 Thread William Anderson

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:41 PM Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> Anyone who wants to turn off IPV4 in their own world can do it now - so JFDI 
> Paul, nobody is stopping anyone, but I'll thank you to fuck off if you think 
> I'll let folks dictate how things should be for others when their own ability 
> to understand what its like for those folks doesn’t extend beyond their first 
> hop.

take it offlist you two, or book an MMA sparring session for after the lockdown.

-n

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

2020-05-23 Thread Neil J. McRae

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

2020-05-23 Thread Paul Mansfield

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. And I
am serious. Look, it's time to basically JFDI. It can be done, there's
no lack of information on what to do or how to do it and how to allow
customers to connect to legacy services on IPv4.

On the one hand I thought that BT might actually want to discontinue
ipv4 service, because BT have rolled out v6 to their domestic
customers, and I assume business customers need only ask for an
allocation, so there's actually nothing to stop you. Or could it be
that your hoard of ipv4 gives you an advantage over new entrants to
the market because they would have to buy IPv4 if they can even get
the large blocks they need particularly for global routing/BGP
filtering etc?

Sky too have rolled of IPv6 to the consumer. If Sky and BT and good
ISPs like Zen do this, you'd have a head start over other providers
like TalkTalk and Plusnet (ahem!).

Basically, just stop poncing around. Five years is plenty of time,
customer churn rates will allow for any non-compliant domestic CPEs to
be replaced, and for business users to get their arses in gear, it's
not rocket science, and if they don't have anyone who can learn how to
set up IPv6, maybe they're not competent enough to be allowed to have
an internet connection.

I originally thought three years would be sufficient, but I figured
you need to allow the natural customer churn to do a lot of the work
for you.

Do it, just fucking do it.

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

2020-05-22 Thread Fearghas Mckay

> On 22 May 2020, at 12:00, Christian  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I am currently building a new network for a small ISP and we are going to be 
>> running IPv6 only services with DNS64/NAT64 as much as possible, but at this 
>> stage we still do require some public IPv4 for business with on-prem 
>> solutions.
>> 
> That's worth discussion - maybe at RIPE NCC? 
> 
> 

Perhaps UKNOF might be a more suitable forum, if nothing else it will be before 
the next RIPE NCC meeting. I am not sure it is really a RIPE NCC issue though. 

We have certainly covered v6 hosting operations at UKNOF in the past, not sure 
we have done an ISP one though. 

f

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

Your welcome Will; I'm glad my forthright comment saved you having to learn to 
play the guitarrón and join a different Mariachi band.

But on your question - God no.

I would have been a consultant to the clowns^w civil servants who would have 
ended up running it and charged the taxpayer an absolute freaking fortune! I do 
have an expensive pinball habit to maintain Will __

On 22/05/2020, 18:00, "uknof on behalf of Will Hargrave" 
 wrote:

Imagine having business practices deemed so unfair that even a Tory 
government’s regulator saw fit to step on them! Not a great look!

Did you not fancy the job of running the nationalised British National 
Broadband PTT or Post Office Internet or whatever it was going to be 
called? I thought it was going to be handed to you lot to run; the 
chickens come home to roost after all :)

On 22 May 2020, at 17:47, Neil J. McRae wrote:

> You mean like this Will?
>
> 
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/fairer-prices-for-broadband-customers
>
> and nobody with half a brain thought Corbyn's idea (and not just this 
> one but all of them)  would make any service issues, or anything else 
> better.
>
> Neil.
>
>
> On 22/05/2020, 17:43, "uknof on behalf of Will Hargrave" 
>  wrote:
>
> On 22 May 2020, at 15:26, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> > Any action needs to have customers and users at the forefront of 
> the
> > thinking; not an afterthought.
>
> This could be an interesting and refreshing approach to how ISPs 
> in the
> UK treat their customers!
>
> As a first step of this wondrous new customer-centric approach, 
> you can
> fix it so that my mum doesn’t have to phone up Plusnet every 
> year and
> threaten to leave/beg to keep on paying a reasonable price for 
> internet
> and phone….  Yeah, thought not .. ;)
>
> The telecoms industry is fast becoming as ill-loved as the motor
> insurance industry for sharp practice, which is why Corbyn’s 
> illfated
> idea to provide free internet for all (and put many of us out of 
> jobs)
> caused such interest! Thankfully it never succeeded but it had me
> worried for a bit!

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

2020-05-22 Thread Will Hargrave

Imagine having business practices deemed so unfair that even a Tory
government’s regulator saw fit to step on them! Not a great look!

Did you not fancy the job of running the nationalised British National
Broadband PTT or Post Office Internet or whatever it was going to be
called? I thought it was going to be handed to you lot to run; the
chickens come home to roost after all :)

On 22 May 2020, at 17:47, Neil J. McRae wrote:

You mean like this Will?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/fairer-prices-for-broadband-customers

and nobody with half a brain thought Corbyn's idea (and not just this
one but all of them) would make any service issues, or anything else
better.

Neil.

On 22/05/2020, 17:43, "uknof on behalf of Will Hargrave"
wrote:

On 22 May 2020, at 15:26, Neil J. McRae wrote:

> Any action needs to have customers and users at the forefront of
the

> thinking; not an afterthought.

This could be an interesting and refreshing approach to how ISPs
in the

UK treat their customers!

As a first step of this wondrous new customer-centric approach,
you can
fix it so that my mum doesn’t have to phone up Plusnet every
year and
threaten to leave/beg to keep on paying a reasonable price for
internet

and phone…. Yeah, thought not .. ;)

The telecoms industry is fast becoming as ill-loved as the motor
insurance industry for sharp practice, which is why Corbyn’s
illfated
idea to provide free internet for all (and put many of us out of
jobs)

caused such interest! Thankfully it never succeeded but it had me
worried for a bit!

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

You mean like this Will?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/fairer-prices-for-broadband-customers

and nobody with half a brain thought Corbyn's idea (and not just this one but 
all of them)  would make any service issues, or anything else better.

Neil.

On 22/05/2020, 17:43, "uknof on behalf of Will Hargrave" 
 wrote:

On 22 May 2020, at 15:26, Neil J. McRae wrote:

> Any action needs to have customers and users at the forefront of the 
> thinking; not an afterthought.

This could be an interesting and refreshing approach to how ISPs in the 
UK treat their customers!

As a first step of this wondrous new customer-centric approach, you can 
fix it so that my mum doesn’t have to phone up Plusnet every year and 
threaten to leave/beg to keep on paying a reasonable price for internet 
and phone….  Yeah, thought not .. ;)

The telecoms industry is fast becoming as ill-loved as the motor 
insurance industry for sharp practice, which is why Corbyn’s illfated 
idea to provide free internet for all (and put many of us out of jobs) 
caused such interest! Thankfully it never succeeded but it had me 
worried for a bit!

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

Until EU says they can't be exported to a "third country" (like using  a 
.eu domain for instance) :-)

On 22/05/2020 16:54, Neil J. McRae wrote:

On the government list of Brexit issues:

1: Be able to import food
2: Be able to import Medicine
3: Be able to import Beer/wine
4: Be able to land planes
...
...
89: make sure macdonalds operates ok
...
...
89,676,213,726 - Tackle the TAX TRAGEDY of exported IPV4 addresses.
...

Cheers,
Neil.

On 22/05/2020, 16:48, "Christian"  wrote:

 How long until Hard Brexit?

 On 22/05/2020 16:34, Neil J. McRae wrote:
 > And this wouldn't change that, nor anything else. It would be a legal 
tax efficient way to avoid Pete's tax.
 >
 > Neil.
 >
 > On 22/05/2020, 16:30, "Tim Chown"  wrote:
 >
 >  > On 22 May 2020, at 15:49, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
 >  >
 >  > As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
 >  >
 >  > I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in 
Luxembourg.
 >
 >  Google reports a higher percentage of IPv6 accesses in Luxembourg 
(40%) than the UK (31%).
 >
 >  Tim
 >
 >

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

On 22/05/2020 14:23, Paul Bone wrote:

>I am tempted to argue that  anybody without a public IP is not actually
>being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".
>
>So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
>"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet
>"connection".

Personally, I feel this is just semantics - whether you call it a 
connection or access, it still does the same thing - gives people 
access to resources on the internet. And I would also suggest that the 
vast majority of users (even more so with cloud services becoming more 
and more prevalent), the actual method used for access can be 
particularly irrelevant as long as the service is visible to the user.

You completely miss the point.

Internet access is about access from the Internet to the people as well. 
Internet connection is the bit that gives people access to resources on 
the Internet.

I've tested several CPE whose call home to mama configuration scripts 
get blackholed - particularly on mobile networks.

I am currently building a new network for a small ISP and we are going 
to be running IPv6 only services with DNS64/NAT64 as much as possible, 
but at this stage we still do require some public IPv4 for business 
with on-prem solutions.

That's worth discussion - maybe at RIPE NCC?

The original IPv6 transition required loads of v4 as you probably know 
well but by 2008 it was clear that was  not going to be possible so IETF 
had a rethink on transition. That's when the NAT wars turned into CGNAT 
horror.

Google are already offering public DNS64 so it should not be that 
difficult for ISPs to implement IPv6 only services going forwards - 
particularly (as Paul Mansfield pointed out) many ISPs are already 
offering dual-stack solutions.

dependency alert? How will that work out?

Going IPv6 only forces the end users to move to IPv6 which appears to 
be the biggest hurdle to overcome.
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.

yup.

C

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 14:09, Christian > wrote:

Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please
note)
have to have a public IP provided that is stable and are able to
initiate and respond to service requests (act as host/p2p)  as of
today.
Would we be able to buy IPv4 Internet access today ?

I am tempted to argue that  anybody without a public IP is not
actually
being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".

So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to
Internet
"connection".

That might also help drive IPv6 as it is by far the cheapest and
simplest way to  provide Internet access rather than just connection.

There are of course various stools between those armchair definitions
but the point is - Industry and users should drive towards IPv6
everywhere. Internet Access should be a clear offer in the market
where
you actually are an Internaut not mediated by CGNATs and goodness
knows
what else. Anything less connected than Access should be distinctly
defined so the market understands the offerings and can make like for
like comparisons.

It also might help drive a distinction away from the lowest common
commodity denominator pricing model we see.

.0001c

Christian

On 19/05/2020 11:09, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> Here's a thought.
> Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
> connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
> support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on
either. ISPs
> can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
> consumers, who can't implement their own solution.
>
> I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply
causes
> more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
> deadline nothing ever finishes!
>
>
> * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as
BT and Sky.
>
> I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
> somewhat silent on this ;-)
>

--
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

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

2020-05-22 Thread Clive D.W. Feather

Pete Stevens said:
> Maybe it's impossible to legislate to make the tax not avoidable, but
> tax avoidance isn't something I've experience with.

Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion isn't.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646

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

How long until Hard Brexit?

On 22/05/2020 16:34, Neil J. McRae wrote:

And this wouldn't change that, nor anything else. It would be a legal tax 
efficient way to avoid Pete's tax.

Neil.

On 22/05/2020, 16:30, "Tim Chown"  wrote:

 > On 22 May 2020, at 15:49, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
 >
 > As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
 >
 > I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in Luxembourg.

 Google reports a higher percentage of IPv6 accesses in Luxembourg (40%) 
than the UK (31%).

 Tim

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

Pete - I'm impressed with your perseverance on this idea even though it's got 
more flees than a Worf's pet targ.

all the cable systems are registered in Bermuda, yet none of them go anywhere 
near the place


On 22/05/2020, 16:39, "Pete Stevens"  wrote:

> Why would that happen Pete?  Nobody would even know that you had even 
done it.

It wouldn't take a very bright tax inspector to notice that she's bought
an internet service from ISP A which included an IPv4 address, and ISP A
doesn't pay any IPv4 address tax because it claims it has no addresses.

Fundamentally if the IPv4 address is routed to a device in the UK, you
can find out where it is and who owns the device it's routed to and send
them a tax bill.

Maybe it's impossible to legislate to make the tax not avoidable, but
tax avoidance isn't something I've experience with.

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

2020-05-22 Thread Pete Stevens


Why would that happen Pete?  Nobody would even know that you had even done it.


It wouldn't take a very bright tax inspector to notice that she's bought
an internet service from ISP A which included an IPv4 address, and ISP A
doesn't pay any IPv4 address tax because it claims it has no addresses.

Fundamentally if the IPv4 address is routed to a device in the UK, you
can find out where it is and who owns the device it's routed to and send
them a tax bill.

Maybe it's impossible to legislate to make the tax not avoidable, but
tax avoidance isn't something I've experience with.

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

And this wouldn't change that, nor anything else. It would be a legal tax 
efficient way to avoid Pete's tax.

Neil.

On 22/05/2020, 16:30, "Tim Chown"  wrote:

> On 22 May 2020, at 15:49, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> 
> As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
> 
> I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in Luxembourg. 

Google reports a higher percentage of IPv6 accesses in Luxembourg (40%) 
than the UK (31%).

Tim

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

2020-05-22 Thread Tim Chown

> On 22 May 2020, at 15:49, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> 
> As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
> 
> I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in Luxembourg. 

Google reports a higher percentage of IPv6 accesses in Luxembourg (40%) than 
the UK (31%).

Tim

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

Is this really not UKNOT?!

Why would that happen Pete?  Nobody would even know that you had even done it. 

Regards,
Neil.

On 22/05/2020, 16:05, "Pete Stevens"  wrote:

On Fri, 22 May 2020, Neil J. McRae wrote:

> As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
>
> I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in Luxembourg.

Excellent, providing that the IPs actually go to Luxembourg too.

IPv6 will look at lot more attractive to customers if the traffic
doesn't have to go to Luxembourg and back unlike IPv4 traffic.

Explaining to the customers that they can't view the BBC because they're
buying service from a Luxembourg ISP might also upset your PR
department.

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

As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D

I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in Luxembourg. 

Neil.

On 22/05/2020, 15:35, "uknof on behalf of Pete Stevens" 
 wrote:

> Here's a thought.

Make IPv4 addresses taxable assets and have them declared on balance
sheets as part of equity. That way you've an incentive to stop using
them and give them back even if you believe in EBITDA because it lowers
your RoCE. It's not like HMRC isn't about to need a massive influx of
money.

If you want to general customer demand for IPv6, announce an additional
charge for filing your tax return over IPv4. Every newspaper in the
world will have a list of good ISPs to use to reduce your taxes.

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

2020-05-22 Thread Pete Stevens


Here's a thought.


Make IPv4 addresses taxable assets and have them declared on balance
sheets as part of equity. That way you've an incentive to stop using
them and give them back even if you believe in EBITDA because it lowers
your RoCE. It's not like HMRC isn't about to need a massive influx of
money.

If you want to general customer demand for IPv6, announce an additional
charge for filing your tax return over IPv4. Every newspaper in the
world will have a list of good ISPs to use to reduce your taxes.

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

2020-05-22 Thread Denesh Bhabuta :: UKNOF

A notice to all…

Play nicely folks.. this is UKNOF, not UKNOT.. just in case anyone had 
forgotten. ;-)

Yes, you can disagree with someone’s viewpoint, but also remember that the 
whole point of UKNOF is to foster a learning and knowledge sharing environment… 
and the list is not only made up of those who are older (like myself) and 
learned in the arts of the Internet.. there are those on here who are also new 
and/or still learning the ropes.

The respect policy at  always applies.

Regards
Denesh

> On 22 May 2020, at 14:15, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> 
> https://imgflip.com/i/42fn8j
> 
> 
> On 22/05/2020, 13:26, "uknof on behalf of Paul Mansfield" 
>  
> wrote:
> 
>Here's a thought.
>Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
>connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
>support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs
>can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
>consumers, who can't implement their own solution.
> 
>I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes
>more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
>deadline nothing ever finishes!
> 
> 
>* the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and 
> Sky.
> 
>I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
>somewhat silent on this ;-)
> 
>

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

2020-05-22 Thread Paul Bone

>I am tempted to argue that  anybody without a public IP is not actually
>being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".
>
>So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
>"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet
>"connection".

Personally, I feel this is just semantics - whether you call it a
connection or access, it still does the same thing - gives people access to
resources on the internet. And I would also suggest that the vast majority
of users (even more so with cloud services becoming more and more
prevalent), the actual method used for access can be particularly
irrelevant as long as the service is visible to the user.

I am currently building a new network for a small ISP and we are going to
be running IPv6 only services with DNS64/NAT64 as much as possible, but at
this stage we still do require some public IPv4 for business with on-prem
solutions.

Google are already offering public DNS64 so it should not be that difficult
for ISPs to implement IPv6 only services going forwards - particularly (as
Paul Mansfield pointed out) many ISPs are already offering dual-stack
solutions.

Going IPv6 only forces the end users to move to IPv6 which appears to be
the biggest hurdle to overcome.

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.

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 14:09, Christian  wrote:

> Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please note)
> have to have a public IP provided that is stable and are able to
> initiate and respond to service requests (act as host/p2p)  as of today.
> Would we be able to buy IPv4 Internet access today ?
>
> I am tempted to argue that  anybody without a public IP is not actually
> being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".
>
> So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
> "Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet
> "connection".
>
> That might also help drive IPv6 as it is by far the cheapest and
> simplest way to  provide Internet access rather than just connection.
>
> There are of course various stools between those armchair definitions
> but the point is - Industry and users should drive towards IPv6
> everywhere. Internet Access should be a clear offer in the market where
> you actually are an Internaut not mediated by CGNATs and goodness knows
> what else. Anything less connected than Access should be  distinctly
> defined so the market understands the offerings and can make like for
> like comparisons.
>
> It also might help drive a distinction away from the lowest common
> commodity denominator pricing model we see.
>
> .0001c
>
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
> On 19/05/2020 11:09, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> > Here's a thought.
> > Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
> > connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
> > support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs
> > can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
> > consumers, who can't implement their own solution.
> >
> > I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes
> > more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
> > deadline nothing ever finishes!
> >
> >
> > * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and
> Sky.
> >
> > I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
> > somewhat silent on this ;-)
> >
>
>

-- 
Paul Bone
Network Consultant

PMB Technology

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

something for the weekend :-)

On 22/05/2020 14:16, Neil J. McRae wrote:

I can see the meme generator is going to be busy today! :D

On 22/05/2020, 14:06, "uknof on behalf of Christian" 
 wrote:

 Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please note)
 have to have a public IP provided that is stable and are able to
 initiate and respond to service requests (act as host/p2p)  as of today.
 Would we be able to buy IPv4 Internet access today ?

 I am tempted to argue that  anybody without a public IP is not actually
 being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".

 So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
 "Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet
 "connection".

 That might also help drive IPv6 as it is by far the cheapest and
 simplest way to  provide Internet access rather than just connection.

 There are of course various stools between those armchair definitions
 but the point is - Industry and users should drive towards IPv6
 everywhere. Internet Access should be a clear offer in the market where
 you actually are an Internaut not mediated by CGNATs and goodness knows
 what else. Anything less connected than Access should be  distinctly
 defined so the market understands the offerings and can make like for
 like comparisons.

 It also might help drive a distinction away from the lowest common
 commodity denominator pricing model we see.

 .0001c

 Christian

 On 19/05/2020 11:09, Paul Mansfield wrote:
 > Here's a thought.
 > Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
 > connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
 > support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs
 > can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
 > consumers, who can't implement their own solution.
 >
 > I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes
 > more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
 > deadline nothing ever finishes!
 >
 >
 > * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and 
Sky.
 >
 > I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
 > somewhat silent on this ;-)
 >

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

I can see the meme generator is going to be busy today! :D

On 22/05/2020, 14:06, "uknof on behalf of Christian" 
 wrote:

Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please note) 
have to have a public IP provided that is stable and are able to 
initiate and respond to service requests (act as host/p2p)  as of today. 
Would we be able to buy IPv4 Internet access today ?

I am tempted to argue that  anybody without a public IP is not actually 
being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".

So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then 
"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet 
"connection".

That might also help drive IPv6 as it is by far the cheapest and 
simplest way to  provide Internet access rather than just connection.

There are of course various stools between those armchair definitions 
but the point is - Industry and users should drive towards IPv6 
everywhere. Internet Access should be a clear offer in the market where 
you actually are an Internaut not mediated by CGNATs and goodness knows 
what else. Anything less connected than Access should be  distinctly 
defined so the market understands the offerings and can make like for 
like comparisons.

It also might help drive a distinction away from the lowest common 
commodity denominator pricing model we see.

.0001c

Christian

On 19/05/2020 11:09, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> Here's a thought.
> Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
> connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
> support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs
> can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
> consumers, who can't implement their own solution.
>
> I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes
> more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
> deadline nothing ever finishes!
>
>
> * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and 
Sky.
>
> I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
> somewhat silent on this ;-)
>

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