[AusNOG] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated

Fri Jan 22 13:40:55 EST 2010

The internet doesn't work like TV though and people don't respond the same way as they would with TV. 

With TV you expect to get a set amount of content, and you can pick one thing at a time. The more channels you have the more choices you have, but it's explicitly finite and everyone understands that. 

With the Internet, you've got one person chatting while watching youtube while also downloading a file in the background and their email comes in and makes a noise. Very different beast. When they can't reach the content they want, they don't typically blame their ISP - they blame the website. Every other website works, why doesn't this one? 

There's no way to make these people change their habits, and as such we will have to deal with and work around the issues. There's no point blaming anyone, it's not CPE providers, content providers, ISPs or consumers fault, it's just the situation. Content providers need their content viewed by everyone, ISPs won't spend money on overhauling their network unless it makes them money (or sets them apart), CPE providers won't add features they don't have to so they can keep their costs low, and consumers are blissfully unaware as long as they can get their content. To point at any of these and saying they're to blame is just a cop out.   

It will eventually happen, but it will be a lot slower than everyone here wants and will driven more by evolution rather than revolution. 

On 22/01/2010, at 1:24 PM, Nathan Gardiner wrote:

> I'm sure it's no revolutionary idea, but the provision of additional spectrum to broadcasters as part of the digital TV rollout, and consequently the availability of extra content through digital recievers has likely done a lot to promote uptake - I read this morning that 44% of Australian viewers have digtal recievers (in reference to ABC's planned news channel), which is very significant given the size of the market.
>  
> Without actually having concrete details I'd think that in any way those with an interest in IPv6 adoption could subsidise specific content or services available exclusively over IPv6, it would at least provide some incentive for CPE vendors and consumers to make the change. I'm aware that my ISP offers dual-stack connectivity and while I'll get around to replacing my CPE eventually I can't say that alone is much of an incentive to spend extra for compatible CPE right now.
>  
> Nathan
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Dasmo <dasmo at dasmo.net> wrote:
> Sure there was, ISPs were only giving out one IP address, they wanted to share their internet connection with more than one computer. Why did windows 98 introduce the internet connection sharing feature then? NAT was a feature customers wanted, IPv6 is not, because they don't know they need it. 
> 
> If they can get youtube and there are workarounds implemented, people don't care. Moving forward we all need to understand this. 
> 
> 
> On 22/01/2010, at 12:17 PM, Curtis Bayne wrote:
> 
>> There was never a customer demand for NAT - it was just something that CPE vendors implemented because there was no other choice - it was in their best interests to do so for the contiguity of their product.
>> 
>> This is no different.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Newton [mailto:newton at internode.com.au]
>> Sent: Fri 1/22/2010 10:19 AM
>> To: Curtis Bayne
>> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated
>> 
>> 
>> On 22/01/2010, at 10:00 AM, Curtis Bayne wrote:
>> 
>> > The technology required to implement v6 on the NBN is available TODAY.
>> >
>> We have customers in our trial on FTTH networks today :)
>> 
>> > You can start developing strategies around currently available hardware TODAY. You can draft a migration strategy TODAY. You can bring v6 into your core TODAY. There may be no consumer demand yet, but one day there will be: don't be caught with your pants down.
>> >
>> 
>> Apart from CPE, another missing element is the CGN boxes we'll all need
>> to keep IPv4 limping along.
>> 
>> When you're talking to CPE vendors about missing v6 support, don't
>> forget to keep banging on the major equipment vendors about the bits
>> of the picture they aren't providing yet.  It's tremendously irresponsible for
>> the majors to spend the last 10 - 15 years in IETF working groups
>> arguing about how IPv6 is supposed to work, then, when crunch time comes,
>> innocently claim total ignorance about the timeframes and pretend that
>> they've been completely blindsided by new IPv6 requirements.
>> 
>> Vapourware doesn't cut it, and at this late stage any vendor who says, "There's
>> no customer demand" should be LARTed from orbit.  That's no longer an
>> acceptable response to anything related to the Internet's IPv6 transition. 
>> 
>> 
>>   - mark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Newton                               Email:  newton at internode.com.au (W)
>> Network Engineer                          Email:  newton at atdot.dotat.org  (H)
>> Internode Pty Ltd                         Desk:   +61-8-82282999
>> "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100122/a58adb10/attachment.html>