|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Lazy network operators
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> ipv4 CIDR also had the effect of making end users fear
> their provider-assigned IP addresses, and the real incentive
> for ipv4 NAT deployment wasn't a lack of ipv4 address space
> but rather a lack of interest in provider-assigned ("lockin")
> addressing.
Indeed, and it did take many going through the pain of renumbering once
to understand this. Lots have been burned, and most won't make the same
mistake twice: if they ever have to implement IPv6 the one thing they
won't go with is "lockin" addressing.
> it's still quite astounding to me that when we finish
> deploying ipv6 we'll still have provider assigned
> addresses that customers are afraid to use beyond the
> edge of their campus, and we'll still have the age-old
> tension between "i could get global routing for that
> address block" and "i could qualify with my RIR to
> obtain that address block (and afford the fees)".
Not astounding to me; IPv6 has never been designed with
the end-user in mind, because said users are typically
not represented in the IETF. Nothing different from the
telephone: we just got cell phone number portability,
and it certainly did not come out from a telco initiative.
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I mean, if you're going to use NAT, why switch to
> IPv6 in the first place?
Answer: stay with IPv4.
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> reasons will vary from "because my vendors are pushing it"
> to "because it has some feature that makes my life easier"
At this point in time none of the features is worth the
infrastructure upgrade cost.
> to "because some application my users are asking for only works on
ipv6"
Still have to see one, as most application writers are not
stupid enough to waste their time writing an IPv6-only app
that will successfully capture 50% of the IPv6 market which
happens to be 0% of the total market.
> to "because it will help me justify next year's IT budget".
Don't even need that one, there are plenty of other and
more important things I can toss in next year's budget.
Besides, in terms of budget, it is risky business to ask
For something that does not provide ROI quickly.
> one reason that won't be on the list is "because i cannot
> otherwise get enough address space to become fully locked
> into my current transit provider."
Indeed.
> and i don't imagine the site-local address ranges will be
> given to a RIR, so folks who decide to number their
> enterprise in that range and then speak to "the internet"
> through an as-yet-unannounced ipv6-nat product will just
> do that.
Indeed, and there are actually blocks that are better choices than the
former site-local range for that (because they are not deprecated).
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> IETF multi6 wg is working on this problem. Hopefully it's
> possible to come up with something that offers both
> scalability and functionality, as current PI and PA
> paradigms each only offer one.
I hard that song for the last ten years. Bottom line is, it's too late
now.
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> so exactly where the multi6 group is planning to sell
> their results, I can't imagine.
I came to the same conclusion earlier. Besides the technical challenges,
there were and still are too many people in the loop that wanted it to
fail in the first place.
Michel.
|