On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> While the goal may be good, a reality check might
be in order. AFAICS, the
>> impact will be that residential and similar usage
will be more heavily
>> NATted. Enterprises need to pay higher cost per
public v4 address. IPv4
>> multihoming practises will evolve (e.g., instead of
multihoming with PI,
>> you multihome with one provider's PA space; you use
multiconnecting to one
>> ISP instead of multihoming). Newcomers to market
(whether ISPs or those
>> sites which wish to start multihoming) are facing
higher costs (the latter
>> of which is also a good thing). Obviously DFZ
deaggregation will increase
>> but we still don't end up routing /32's globally.
>
> I am confused by your statement. It appears you are
saying that it
> is a good thing for sites that wish to multihome to
face higher
> costs. If that is truly what you are saying, then, I
must
> strenuously disagree. I think that increased cost for
resilient
> networking is a very bad thing.
I understand your reasoning (we've been through this before
so we'll
just have to agree to disagree). If a site is unwilling to
pay, e.g.,
10000$/yr for its multihoming, maybe it should stop
polluting the
global routing table and instead use other redundancy
mechanisms.
Today, it's too cheap to pollute global DFZ; increasing the
cost
motivates finding other mechanisms to obtain redundancy.
>> While price for a /20 or /16 of address space might
go up pretty high, a
>> /24 can still be obtained with a reasonable cost.
Those ISPs with lots of
>> spare or freeable v4 space will be best placed to
profit from new customers
>> and as a result v6 will remain an unattractive
choice for end-users.
>>
> Only for some limited period of time. Even those
"freeable" /24s will get
> used up fairly quickly.
Even a single /8 will allow 64K allocations for multihoming
perspective; that's more than we have today, and there is a
lot more
spare or freeable space to use.
[...]
> However, once we reach somewhat minimal critical mass
in IPv6
> content, and, NAT-PT solutions are more readily
available and better
> understood, I think you'll see most new enterprise
deployments being
> done with IPv6.
I agree with most of what you're saying but given that most
enterprise
admins are familiar with v4 and not with v6, if the
enterprise is
going to be completely behind a NAT or NAT-PT anyway, it may
be
difficult to find the benefit to deploy the enterprise
network with v6
rather than with v4 private addresses. Easier company
mergers is
probably one of the highest on the list,
"futureproofing the network"
is probably not considered worth the expense.
>> So v6 capabilities in the ISP backbones will
improve but the end-users and
>> sites still don't get v6 ubiquituously. This is a
significant improvement
>> from v6 perspective but is still not enough to get
to 90% global v6
>> deployment.
>>
> I'm not sure why 90% is necessary or even desirable in
the short
> term. What's magic about 90%?
Don't ask me for the magic number -- I just took what Leo
offered. 
> What I think is more interesting is arriving at the
point where you
> can deploy a new site entirely with IPv6 without
concerns about
> being disconnected from some (significant) portion of
the internet
> (intarweb?).
I agree that's an interesting (earlier) scenario. To me what
you
require represents a situation where basically every ISP is
offering
v6 and it's widely considered to have similar SLAs as v4
today has,
and it's used sufficiently widely and is reliable.
To get there in practice, ISPs will need users which require
this kind
of SLAs and reliability. So, while 90% user and content
penetration
is is not needed to reach this goal, it will need to be
significantly
higher than, say, 5%. Who are going to be the first v6
end-sites and
content provides? It's a thankless job to be on the
bleeding edge and
it may be difficult to define a business case for it.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves
king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash
of Kings
|
