nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP4 Space
From: Dave Israel <davei () otd com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:49:32 -0400
On 3/23/2010 10:59 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
On 24/03/2010, at 4:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
Are you kidding? I'm in state education these days. I probably still have one or two 2500 series routers hiding in my network.
Ten years ago we were routing appletalk and IPX. Still doing that now?
Ten years ago we were routing ipv4, which was going to die of address exhaustion and/or be replaced by ipv6 within two years. Fifteen years ago we were running ipv4, which was going to die of address exhaustion and/or be replaced by OSI within two years. I remember a (telco) engineer, after a presentation on MPLS in the late 90s, saying that it was all very interesting, but all this IP stuff was a fad, and everything was going to be ATM in the near future.
I'd expect that v4 will still exist in legacy form behind firewalls, but I think its deprecation on the public internet will happen a lot faster than anyone expects.
You may be right; past experience is not always correct in predicting future behavior. But there has to be a reason why it will be different this time.
I agree that v6 deployments seem to be getting better/faster/stronger... I think that's good news, but we'll still be paying the v4 piper for a while.Only until v4 becomes more expensive (using whatever metric matters to you) than v6. After you pass that tipping point, v4 deployment will stop dead.
Sure. But the key phrase is "whatever metric matters to you." You're going to find people whose "expense" metrics are neither dollars nor sense. 1) For some people, that might mean what you think it means: "Hey, to deploy ipv4, we have to pay for this expensive translator box. Lets do v6." 2) On the other hand, there'll be "Hey, we already bought the translator box, because we had an emergency and had to deploy it. So let's stick to v4, because it is what we know." 3) In a lot of places, there will be "Everything I want is v4. v6 is the expensive option, because it means deploying new router software and/or configurations." 4) For others, it will be "I know v4, and not v6. My management knows nothing, and buys what I tell them." 5) Because of groups 2-4, there will be plenty of "Everybody else is still doing v4, and so v4 is what I need to reach them." 6) And finally, there will be a lot of "I need to talk to people in groups 2-5, so I need to deploy v4 regardless." Remember, a new protocol is a lot harder to sell than a new hack that makes the old protocol live longer. And all the protestations of "It can't keep going on like this" ignores history again. Just because we don't *want* NAT to be "fixed" to support more people doesn't make it un"fix"able. If you want v6 deployed, you cannot expect to sit around and wait for everybody to admit you're right; you must make deploying v6 easier/cheaper/less painful than pumping life into v4. -Dave
Current thread:
- Re: IP4 Space, (continued)
- Re: IP4 Space Michael Dillon (Mar 24)
- [OT] Old kit (was:Re: IP4 Space) Lamar Owen (Mar 26)
- Re: [OT] Old kit (was:Re: IP4 Space) Owen DeLong (Mar 26)
- Re: [OT] Old kit Joel Jaeggli (Mar 26)
- Re: [OT] Old kit (was:Re: IP4 Space) Jorge Amodio (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 23)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher Morrow (Mar 23)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: IP4 Space bmanning (Mar 24)
- RE: IP4 Space Frank Bulk - iName.com (Mar 24)
- Re: IP4 Space Dave Israel (Mar 24)
- Re: IP4 Space Bill Stewart (Mar 24)
- Re: IP4 Space Steven Bellovin (Mar 24)
- Re: IP4 Space Lamar Owen (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space David Conrad (Mar 23)
- Re: IP4 Space isabel dias (Mar 23)
- Re: IP4 Space Nathan Ward (Mar 22)
- Re: IP4 Space Tim Durack (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Jeff McAdams (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Chris Adams (Mar 05)