[afnog] IPv6 Progress

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 08:50:39 AM Geert Jan de Groot 
wrote:

> These days, it is a business risk, no more and no less.

Isn't everything :-)?

> Could a few years the case be made that creating
> awareness is neccessary, I believe that anyone who knows
> what a packet is, also knows what IPv6 is. The time for
> reachout is done.

Agree, but I'm talking about what will "eventually" drive 
operators to get serious about IPv6.

It certainly isn't lack of awareness, that is in droves. I 
think it will be pressure from growth when we:

	a) Run out of IPv4 space from the RIR
	b) Can't continue to scale NAT44 or NAT444

> Running IPv4/NAT has costs, short-term and long-term,
> complexity, shortage, etc
> 
> Running IPv6 has costs, short-term and long-term,
> implementation challenges, maturity, etc

For now, it is my thoughts that operators in Africa still 
have lots of IPv4 space and can still get more from AFRINIC 
if they run short. So NAT44 won't die anytime soon because 
for the amount of revenue generated and time gained (or 
lost), it works out cheaper for them to spend big millions 
with vendors to throw down CG-NAT devices.

But there is also a limit to that madness (ask Comcast), and 
that is, I think, the point at which they will start to get 
serious about IPv6. How long will it take? I don't know...

> Everyone who runs a network, makes decisions on how to
> run it and incurs the costs and profits of his (or her)
> decisions. I have no pity at all with anyone who finds
> that his business suddenly drops because he
> procastinated implementing IPv6 - the message has been
> out, for many, many years, and through several
> generations of popular applications, some of which are
> now in disuse. Nobody can blame not having been told and
> get away with it.

While I encourage my competitors not to deploy IPv6 so that 
their customers can flock to me, this is not very practical 
because different operators operate in different markets of 
the industry.

I'm averse to the Internet breaking so we can prove a point.

We also know that as engineers, we always wish the 
executives just "got it". As things always go, we need to 
make the case; and that is often as hard (if not harder) 
than doing the actual work.

> At the same time, we should not tell how others run their
> networks. That's their decision, their consequences.

The point of this mailing list is to offer advice that is 
commonly considered best.

It is up to the reader what they go and do with it.

> For now, unfortunately postponing IPv6 doesn't seem to
> have too many consequences. When (if?) that changes,
> then the consequences are theirs, not mine. I don't pity
> the ones left behind then.

But if you can't send me e-mail because you have IPv6 and I 
don't, how does that help each of us, as end users that just 
want to communicate?

> I'd like then to run IPv6.
> I'd like them to loose business for not running IPv6,
> yes. At the same time, I'm not holding my breath waiting
> for it to happen.

Don't expect a big bang saying "IPv6 is here now". It will 
creep up on us, like everything else on the Internet.

> It is just a business risk. That's all.

Isn't everything :-)?

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20130801/f51e3c6d/attachment.sig>