[AusNOG] IPv6 excuses

[Mark Andrews]

In message <CAO42Z2y87pe4M44V5jjuDGAOZQe1YfKvs1f7zhbgLDsJAxVrMg at mail.gmail.com>, Mark Smith writes:
> On 27 May 2016 at 12:32, Skeeve Stevens
> <skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
> >
> > Love it...
> >
> > Most of them are true... except
> >
> > "None of our customers want it" and "End users don't care about IPv6"
> >
> > Are true... they don't and won't... but it isn't a valid reason not to
> > roll it out... but it is a painful one when justifying the business case.
> >
> 
> I doubt many of them wanted IPv4 either. They wanted Internet access,
> or probably more specifically, email and world-wide-web access.
> 
> IPv4 and IPv6 are the 'whats' not the 'whys'.
> 
> If you walk up to somebody, even a technical manager, and say "we need
> to deploy IPv6", their likely answer will be the question "why?" (or
> "<sigh> Not this again."). You need to have an answer, and it needs to
> be valid for the situation.
> 
> On the Internet, IPv6 is optional, because somebody can access
> everything with just an IPv4 address.

This has not been true for 20 years now.  The moment we were forced
into using NAT to connect people could connect to everything they
wanted to.  Just because we have put up with degraded service through
neccesity doesn't mean that there isn't a issue.  CGNAT just made
the probem worse as many workarounds don't work with CGNAT.

NAT and CGNAT are stop gap mechanisms.  People have forgotten this
as they have had to live with it for too long.

> The places where we are seeing it deployed by necessity are where it
> may be becoming cheaper than IPv4 - in terms of either avoiding having
> to buy IPv4 addresses (where IPv6 is available at both ends), avoiding
> increasing CGN costs (I expect that explains Telstra's mobile role
> out), or that it is simpler to have a pure IPv6 network internally,
> and then translate to IPv4 for external IPv4-only clients at the edge,
> which is what I've heard organisations like Facebook are starting to
> do.
> 
> Because IPv4 CGN purchased capacity is inversely proportional to the
> amount of IPv6 traffic an ISP carries, at some point an ISP will have
> a strong incentive to encourage their customers to adopt IPv6 to lower
> their IPv4 CGN capacity costs.
> 
> ISPs could create that incentive by making a dual IPv4/IPv6 stack
> service cheaper than a single IPv4 stack service. The answer to the
> "why" question above then becomes "because we get cheaper Internet
> access."
> 
> Regards,
> Mark.
> 
> 
> > ...Skeeve
> >
> > Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
> > Email: skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; Web: eintellegonetworks.com
> >
> > Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve ; LinkedIn: /in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> http://ipv6excuses.com/
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> http://ipv6bingo.com/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org