Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 11/07/2016 09:24, Mark Andrews wrote: >> Our provider sale representative, who is the most tech savvy sale-rep I >> ever encountered by far, which is not a very high bar, but still, said >> something like: >> "You shouldn't worry about that, we have plenty of IPv4 addresses >> left... and

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

In message <222bac2d-800b-93c7-7d17-bd469e858...@gmail.com>, Davide Davini writ es: > On 01/07/2016 21:52, Mike Jones wrote: > > I am in contact with a couple of network operators trying to prod them > > to deploy IPv6, I figured that 10 minutes to send a couple of emails > > was worth the effort

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 01/07/2016 21:52, Mike Jones wrote: > I am in contact with a couple of network operators trying to prod them > to deploy IPv6, I figured that 10 minutes to send a couple of emails > was worth the effort to make them "see a customer demand" (now none of > them can use the excuse that nobody has

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

quot;Valdis Kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 11:22:59 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 deployment excuses valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In addition, > Thus almost guaranteeing a ca

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote: We will tell you to use IPv6 for that or make you pay extra for a dedicated IPv4 address. That is a good solution to that problem. I hope all ISPs implementing A+P protocols does that. It also puts a monthly cost that teleworkers have to pay (or

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 5 July 2016 at 07:27, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > The two other technologies mentioned do the same as MAP more or less, but >> both requires carrier NAT, which is expensive for the ISP and has a lack of >> control as seen from

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote: The two other technologies mentioned do the same as MAP more or less, but both requires carrier NAT, which is expensive for the ISP and has a lack of control as seen from the end user point of view (no port forwarding etc). What it does however, is

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In addition, Thus almost guaranteeing a call to the support desk for each and every single game console, because the PS3 and PS4 doesn't have a configuration interface for that, and the XBox probably doesn't either (and

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:16:31 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In addition, the ISP > tells its subscriber a global IP address, a private IP address > and a small range of port numbers the subscriber can use and > set up *static* bi-directional port

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

> On Jul 4, 2016, at 10:32 PM, Matt Hoppes > wrote: > > Jared, > The issue I have with the whole DNS IPv6 thing is IPs are static (on > infrastructure), DNS can get munged up and is another database we have to > maintain. I’m not sure I understand your

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Jared Mauch wrote: Are you saying, without NAT or something like that to restrict reachable ports, the Internet, regardless of whether it is with IPv4 or IPv6, is not very secure? I'm saying two things: 1) UPnP is a security nightmare and nobody (at scale) will let you

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Jared, The issue I have with the whole DNS IPv6 thing is IPs are static (on infrastructure), DNS can get munged up and is another database we have to maintain. So now rather than just maintaining an IP database we have to maintain a database for DNS to IP and the IP. And Ina subscriber

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Or how about we just avoid anything that uses the terms like "Mappings" and "NAT" and speed the adoption of IPv6 everywhere which already solves all of these problems. *Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sr...@arbor.net *Arbor Networks* +1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Baldur Norddahl wrote: With end to end NAT, you can still configure your UPnP capable NAT boxes to restrict port forwarding. Only if you by NAT mean "home network NAT". No large ISP has or will deploy a carrier NAT router that will respect UPnP. A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 06:41:00PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Jared Mauch wrote: > > > Actually they are not that great. Look at the DDoS mess that UPnP has > > created and problems for IoT (I call it Internet of trash, as most > > devices are poorly implemented without safety in mind) folks

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Monday, July 4, 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > On 2016-07-04 20:50, Ca By wrote: > > > Always so funny how people love talking how great MAP scales, yet it has > never been deployed at scale. 464XLAT and ds-lite have been deployed at > real scale, so has 6RD. > >

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 2016-07-04 20:50, Ca By wrote: Always so funny how people love talking how great MAP scales, yet it has never been deployed at scale. 464XLAT and ds-lite have been deployed at real scale, so has 6RD. MAP is like beta max. Technically great, but reality is poor. The two MAP RFCs are dated

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 4/Jul/16 18:28, Matt Hoppes wrote: > Except the lady will eventually downsize. The college student will want more > and lease the space. > > Also, the 49,000 Sq ft office space that has been leased for 10 years and > never occupied will be taken back and released to someone who will

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 4/Jul/16 16:33, Matt Hoppes wrote: > Except that IPv4 is not exhausted. That's the doomsday message that was > preached over and over. > > The simple fact that there is/are IP broker exchanges now simply proves there > are surplus IPs to go around. > > We have an efficiency utilization

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 4/Jul/16 14:44, Matt Hoppes wrote: > I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue to offer > IPv4 lest they island themselves from subscribers who have IPv4 only - which > no data center is going to do. But that's what I said... Mark.

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 4 July 2016 at 11:41, Masataka Ohta wrote: > With end to end NAT, you can still configure your UPnP capable NAT > boxes to restrict port forwarding. > Only if you by NAT mean "home network NAT". No large ISP has or will deploy a carrier NAT router that will

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses - IPv6 only resources

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jacques Latour wrote: > > Is there a list of IPv6 only ISP or services? I'd be curious to trend > that somehow, by geography, service type, etc... if any. > Since "IPv6 only" right now is primarily about those portions of the network

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Filip Hruska wrote: Without firewalls, internet is not very secure, regardless of protocol used. Irrelevant. The point of the Internet with end to end transparency is that if end users want to have the end to end transparency, they can have it. If they don't, they don't have to.

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses - IPv6 only resources

: Tore Anderson; nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: IPv6 deployment excuses > > >In message c2ae05bcc...@rivervalleyinternet.net>, Matt Hoppes writes: >> I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue >> to offer IPv4 lest they island themselves from subscri

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > Except the lady will eventually downsize. The college student will want > more and lease the space. > > Also, the 49,000 Sq ft office space that has been leased for 10 years and > never occupied will be

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Mon 2016-Jul-04 12:42:33 -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: Except the lady will eventually downsize. The college student will want more and lease the space. Also, the 49,000

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > Except the lady will eventually downsize. The college student will want > more and lease the space. > > Also, the 49,000 Sq ft office space that has been leased for 10 years and > never occupied will be

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Matt Hoppes wrote: My point is there are more than enough IPv4 addresses. The issue is not resources. It is hoarding and inappropriate use. I tend to make the analogy of land use and/or houses/apartments. Yes, there is that old lady down the street who lives in 300 square

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 4 July 2016 at 17:33, Matt Hoppes wrote: > The simple fact that there is/are IP broker exchanges now simply proves there > are surplus IPs to go around. I'm unsure of the message. Is the statement that if commodity is tradable, there is surplus to go

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Except that IPv4 is not exhausted. That's the doomsday message that was preached over and over. The simple fact that there is/are IP broker exchanges now simply proves there are surplus IPs to go around. We have an efficiency utilization issue - not an exhaustion issue.

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

There are 7 billion people world wide that want Internet and only approximately 3 billion usable IPv4 addresses. It wont do. Den 4. jul. 2016 16.03 skrev "Matt Hoppes" < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>: > My point is there are more than enough IPv4 addresses. The issue is not > resources. It

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue to > offer IPv4 lest they island themselves from subscribers who have IPv4 only > - which no data center is going to do. > > Thus, as an

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

My point is there are more than enough IPv4 addresses. The issue is not resources. It is hoarding and inappropriate use. The large ISPs have enough IPs to service every household in the US several times over. And yet, we have an IP shortage. There are universities holding onto /8s and not

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

In message , Matt Hoppes writes: > I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue to > offer IPv4 lest they island themselves from subscribers who have IPv4 > only - which no data center is going to do. > > One

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue to offer IPv4 lest they island themselves from subscribers who have IPv4 only - which no data center is going to do. One can not run IPv6 only because there are sites that are only IPv4. Thus, as an ISP you can safely

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Without firewalls, internet is not very secure, regardless of protocol used. On 07/04/2016 11:41 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Jared Mauch wrote: > >> Actually they are not that great. Look at the DDoS mess that UPnP has >> created and problems for IoT (I call it Internet of trash, as most >>

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Jared Mauch wrote: Actually they are not that great. Look at the DDoS mess that UPnP has created and problems for IoT (I call it Internet of trash, as most devices are poorly implemented without safety in mind) folks on all sides. Are you saying, without NAT or something like that to restrict

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 4/Jul/16 11:04, Tore Anderson wrote: > My point is that as a content provider, I only need dual-stacked > façade. That can easily be achieved using, e.g., protocol translation > at the outer border of my network. > > The inside of my network, where 99.99% of all the complexity, devices, >

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

* Mark Tinka > What I was trying to get to is that, yes, running a single-stack is > cheaper (depending on what "cheaper" means to you) than running > dual-stack. Wholeheartedly agreed. > That said, running IPv4-only means you put yourself at a disadvantage > as IPv6 is

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 3/Jul/16 15:34, Tore Anderson wrote: > We've found that it is. IPv6-only greatly reduces complexity compared to > dual stack. This means higher reliability, lower OpEx, shorter recovery > time when something does go wrong anyway, fewer SLA violations, happier > customers, and so on - the

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

* Mark Tinka > I understand your points - to your comment, my question is around > whether it is cheaper (for you) to just run IPv6 in lieu of IPv6 and > IPv4. We've found that it is. IPv6-only greatly reduces complexity compared to dual stack. This means higher reliability, lower OpEx, shorter

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 3 July 2016 at 12:15, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 3/Jul/16 12:01, Ruairi Carroll wrote: > > > Core of the issue is that we _need_ to get an ICMP message back to the > original "real server" who sent it. It's a non-issue in the SP space, but > imagine if your ECMP groups

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 3/Jul/16 12:01, Ruairi Carroll wrote: > > Core of the issue is that we _need_ to get an ICMP message back to the > original "real server" who sent it. It's a non-issue in the SP space, > but imagine if your ECMP groups were stateful in both directions... Okay. > > > Think about it in

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 3 July 2016 at 11:42, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 2/Jul/16 17:35, Ruairi Carroll wrote: > > - ECMP issues (Mostly around flow labels and vendor support for that, also > feeds back into PMTUD issues) > > > Do you rely on the ToS field in IPv4 for ECMP? > > Nope. I use l4

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 2/Jul/16 18:49, William Astle wrote: > Their specific excuse du jour changes every few months but it usually > boils down to "we don't want to put any effort or resources into > updating anything". If you keep asking your girlfriend out on a date each week, and she refuses to go out with

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On 2/Jul/16 17:35, Ruairi Carroll wrote: > - ECMP issues (Mostly around flow labels and vendor support for that, also > feeds back into PMTUD issues) Do you rely on the ToS field in IPv4 for ECMP? > - Maintaining 2x IP stacks is inherently expensive Vs 1 How so? Mark.

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses

way you had set them, I am quite sure that you take an entirely different position! > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2016 12:43 > Cc: nanog list > Subject: Re: IPv6 deployment excuse

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Living in an area where we have a dense pocket without broadband available is a key problem. The two incumbents fail to service the area despite one having fiber 1200' away at the entry to our street. One area incumbent can do native v6, the other does 6rd but they don't serve the area so

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

- Original Message - From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedc...@dessus.com> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 11:41:48 AM Subject: RE: IPv6 deployment excuses Yes, the default is "on". An exception is added for EVERY SINGLE PIECE of

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 10:49:40AM -0600, William Astle wrote: > it usually boils down to "we don't want to put any effort or resources into > updating anything". > And they must be right as their clients won't go away... :p

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

There's one other major issue faced by stub networks which I have encountered at $DAYJOB: - My upstream(s) refuse(s) to support IPv6 This *is* a deal breaker. The pat response of "get new upstreams" is not helpful and shows the distinct bias among this community to the large players who

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses

now because I never ran it. > -Original Message- > From: Spencer Ryan [mailto:sr...@arbor.net] > Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2016 10:08 > To: Keith Medcalf > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: RE: IPv6 deployment excuses > > Windows 8 and 10 with the mo

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses

Windows 8 and 10 with the most recent service packs default the firewall to on with very few inbound exemptions. On Jul 2, 2016 11:38 AM, "Keith Medcalf" wrote: > > > There is no difference between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to > > firewalls and reachability. It is worth

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses

> There is no difference between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to > firewalls and reachability. It is worth noting that hosts which > support IPv6 are typically a lot more secure than older IPv4-only > hosts. As an example every version of Windows that ships with IPv6 > support also ships with the

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Issues I've faced in the past with v6 deployments, from the point of view of stub networks. Feel free to pick/choose as you wish: - Badly understood (By the team) methods to assign addressing to servers. - Poor tooling in regards to log processing/external providers. - Unknown cost in dev time to

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Thanks guys, this is what I have come up with so far. Next week i'll put together a web page or something with slightly better write-ups, but these are my initial ideas for responses to each point. Better answers would be welcome. "We have NAT, therefore we don't need IPv6." "We still have plenty

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Actually they are not that great. Look at the DDoS mess that UPnP has created and problems for IoT (I call it Internet of trash, as most devices are poorly implemented without safety in mind) folks on all sides. The fact that I go to a hotel and that AT mobility have limited internet reach is

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

Jared Mauch wrote: https://youtu.be/v26BAlfWBm8 Is always good for a reminder and laughs on a holiday weekend. But, end to end NATs are actually good: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00 fully transparent to all the transport and application layer protocols. And, to

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses

> Subject: Re: IPv6 deployment excuses > > On Fri Jul 1 17:43:21 2016, Gary Wardell wrote: > > > > > > <http://ipv6excuses.com/> http://ipv6excuses.com/ > > > > That website only supports IPv4. > > It’s on your side. > > alarig@

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

From: Alarig Le Lay -- Sent: 2016-07-01 - 14:53 > On Fri Jul 1 17:43:21 2016, Gary Wardell wrote: >> > >> > http://ipv6excuses.com/ >> >> That website only supports IPv4. > > It’s on your side. > > alarig@pikachu ~ % telnet ipv6excuses.com http > Trying

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Fri Jul 1 17:43:21 2016, Gary Wardell wrote: > > > > http://ipv6excuses.com/ > > That website only supports IPv4. It’s on your side. alarig@pikachu ~ % telnet ipv6excuses.com http Trying 2403:7000:8000:500::26... Connected to ipv6excuses.com. Escape character is '^]'. ^] telnet> quit

RE: IPv6 deployment excuses

> > http://ipv6excuses.com/ That website only supports IPv4. Gary

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

https://youtu.be/v26BAlfWBm8 Is always good for a reminder and laughs on a holiday weekend. Jared Mauch > On Jul 1, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > > http://ipv6excuses.com/ > https://twitter.com/ipv6excuses

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

From: Mike Jones -- Sent: 2016-07-01 - 12:52 > Hi, > > I am in contact with a couple of network operators trying to prod them > to deploy IPv6, I figured that 10 minutes to send a couple of emails > was worth the effort to make them "see a customer demand" (now

Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Mike Jones wrote: > Hi, > > I am in contact with a couple of network operators trying to prod them > to deploy IPv6, I figured that 10 minutes to send a couple of emails > was worth the effort to make them "see a customer demand" (now none of > them can use the excuse that