[AusNOG] [Ap-ipv6tf] official shutdown date for IPv4. The date he is pushing for is April 4, 2024. "IPv4 can't go on forever, " Latour said. "

[Mark ZZZ Smith]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Ross Wheeler <ausnog at rossw.net>
> To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>
> Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Sent: Friday, 7 November 2014, 17:32
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [Ap-ipv6tf] official shutdown date for IPv4. The date he is pushing for is April 4, 2024. "IPv4 can't go on forever, " Latour said. "
> 
> 
> 
>>  What sort of equipment? A lot of networking equipment has been able to 
>>  do IPv6 for at least decade, it is just a matter of switching it on.
> 
> I know of a bunch of equipment - much of it no longer supported - with 
> IPv4 *ONLY* networking. Quite a few network-enabled printers for example.
> Lots of CURRENTLY MADE equipment - for example, the solar MPPT devices I 
> use here - don't support IPv6 in any form, and are not likely to.
> Lots of PLCs. I know of many PVR/DVR devices without V6 support. Webcams. 
> CBus network interfaces (they may have now, but all the ones I've ever 
> seen don't, and replacing them is far from an "inexpensive 
> upgrade").
> 

Who said you had to switch off IPv4 for IPv4 only devices?


> 
>>  Well, if they'll have to place a value on accessing IPv6 only content. 
>>  If that value is below what the replacement cost of their equipment is, 
>>  they'll have to live without the IPv6 only content. At some point it 
>>  won't be possible to make it available over IPv4, so they'll need 
> to 
>>  choose what is more important to them.
> 
> I guess THAT will depend on what IPv6-only content there is.
> I can't imagine any of the "mainstream" sites dropping IPv4 any 
> time soon, 
> because they don't want to lose the existing IPv4-only users. Catch-22.
> 

They eventually won't have a choice. If you think they will, then you're really saying that IPv4 addresses won't run out. That has already happened in some parts of the world, including this Asia Pacific region.

The rest of your email seems to be based on the premise that people are saying you must switch off IPv4 when you switch on IPv6, and therefore you must through out all of your IPv4 only devices. I'm certainly not saying that, and I'm pretty confident that other people who understand IPv6 are also not saying that either.

If your IPv4 only devices continue to do the job you've got them for, there is no need to through them out when you deploy IPv6. You can and usually would deploy IPv6 in parallel with IPv4, not in place of it. 

Eventually we'll only have IPv6 networks, but that will be because it is fundamentally cheaper to run single protocol rather than multiple protocol networks, similar to how we used to run IPX/Appletalk/IPv4 networks and eventually ended up with just IPv4 networks for the past 10 to 15 years, because "everything over IP" was cheaper. However I don't see that happening any time soon.


> 
>>  If you haven't been looking, how can you have seen anything? Absence of 
> 
>>  evidence is not evidence of absence, in particular if you haven't been 
>>  looking for evidence!
> 
> Haven't been looking <implied> in earnest or specifically for 
> </implied>
> 
> And yes, absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence!
> 
> 
>>  When I occasionally visit Office works I have a look at the spec's of 
>>  various CPE, and IPv6 support is starting to show up fairly often.
> 
> "IPv6 support" isn't what I was asking though.
> I was asking for a "stepping-stone" for users who may have a 
> significant 
> (to them) outlay in their "home computer network" or "small 
> office 
> network" - perhaps network storage, media-centre, security systems, 
> possibly even VoIP devices - that may not all support IPv6.
> 
> Those in multi-billion-dollar companies who just chalk up a few percent of 
> revenue to upgrading, or who make a "multi-million-dollar commitment" 
> to 
> upgrading are all well and good, but as network operators and/or ISPs, 
> we're "middle-men". The people at the other end of the string - 
> those at 
> home and in small offices particularly (because they're the ones for whom 
> even modest additional expense will hurt most) also need to be considered 
> in this whole "upgrade process".
> 
> 
>>  Here's what appears to be the cheapest Netgear ADSL router, and IPv6 is 
> 
>>  listed, and seems to retail at around $60:
> 
> Yes, IPv6 support, but no indication if it is capable of doing a V6/V4 
> "translation" for legacy devices. I know a change to IPv6 should be a 
> complete change, but some people simply won't be ABLE TO. Or, will have to 
> sacrafice a bunch of capabilities in order to. Yes, I'm sure a modern 
> computer is quite capable of running an IPv6 stack AND an IPv4 stack 
> simultaneously, and to access local devices on the network via whichever 
> protocol is required... but (lets just play devils advocate here for a 
> minute)...
> 
> Take the case of my neighbour. Had major problems with breakins, installed 
> a 20-camera security system with a fancy digital video recorder and 
> internet access. He got a unit. Chinese. No support, company since 
> changed to making whatever. Cost him more than he can afford to replace. 
> It's only IPv4. Sure, he can access it from his computer on his local 
> network, but when he needs it most is when he's away. Right now, he can 
> connect to his home internet connection and see what's going on. His 
> recorder can call out (email) to notify him of an alarm, and send a 
> picture. It needs internet access periodically to set the time etc.
> How's this scenario work with the above modem (or any of the others 
> you've 
> generously listed)?
> He's a builder, not a network guru. All these "IP address" 
> settings he had 
> to fill in to get it to work required assistance, but at least he got it 
> going. I'm not even sure it's POSSIBLE with an "IPv6 router" 
> with IPv4 
> devices on the LAN side, is it? (Please tell me it "just works, and the 
> router does the same NAT function, except the outside address is IPv6!")
> 

Well, unfortunately he might be screwed when ISPs have to deploy Carrier Grade (IPv4) NATs, and they've got no choice because they didn't deploy IPv6 early enough to avoid them. Two NATs in a row are a lot worse than one:

Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021

He'll likely have to pay a premium to get a non-carrier NAT'd address.

>>  Given how often people are willing to 'throw-away' smartphones that 
> cost 
>>  in the many $100s of dollars every few years, if there is a need to buy 
>>  an IPv6 supporting router for home, I think people will fairly easily 
>>  find the money.
> 
> You may be right. But there will still be a non-trivial number who won't.
> 

So what is your solution? Declare the Internet full because some people choose not to upgrade to IPv6? 




> 
> RossW
>