Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

[Martin Geddes <mail () martingeddes com>]

"IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
users have access to IPv6 connectivity."

It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.

IP's global addressing system is broken from the outset. See John Day's
presentation "Surviving Networking’s Dark Ages - or How in the Hell Do You
Lose a Layer!?"
<http://irati.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1-LostLayer130123.pdf> (or,
indeed, lots of them at once.)

It's really all about scopes, not layers - the TCP/IP architecture is
divided up the wrong way, and it will never be fixed. It's an escaped 1970s
lab experiment that was able to extract the statistical multiplexing gain
faster than rivals, but on a performance and security "buy now, pay later"
basis.

If you want to see a viable alternative approach, read my post "Network
architecture research: TCP/IP vs RINA"
<http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/nuclear-networking/> for an
introduction. That said, I'm not expecting anyone to immediately resign
their membership of the Seven Layer Adventists as a result. Yes, the
Internet's intellectual foundations are rotten - but that is too much
anxiety and dissonance for most people to cope with.

May all your intentional semantics become operational,
Martin

On 17 June 2014 23:12, Andrew Fried <andrew.fried () gmail com> wrote:

> IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
> users have access to IPv6 connectivity.
>
> Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own
> systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is
> IPv4 *only*.  Yes, Comcast is in the process of rolling out IPv6, but my
> Comcast circuit in Washington DC is IPv4 only.  And I'd suspect that
> everyone with Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, etc are all in the same boat.
>
> Whether the reason for the lack of IPv6 deployment is laziness or an
> intentional omission on the part of large ISPs to protect their income
> from leasing IPv4 addresses doesn't matter to the vast majority of the
> end users;  they simply can't access IPv6 via IPv4 only networks,
> without using some kludgy, complicated tunneling protocols.
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andrew Fried
> andrew.fried () gmail com
>
> On 6/17/14, 5:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra () baylink com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here's what the general public is hearing:
> > >
> > > But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
> > > ~$ dig AAAA arstechnica.com +short
> > > ~$
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-ru
> > > > nning-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't tech news sites *please* run dual stack while they're spouting
> > > end-of-IPv4 stories?
> >
> > <wishful thinking=on>
> >
> > I would love to see a few more properties do IPv6 by default, such as
> ARS, Twitter and a few others.  After posting some links and being a log
> stalker last night the first 3 hits from non-bots were from users on IPv6
> enabled networks.
> > It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
> others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish AAAA records
> with no adverse public impact.  Making IPv6 available by default for users
> would be an excellent step.  People like AT&T who control the 'attwifi'
> ssid could do NAT66 at their sites and provide similar service to the
> masses.  With chains like Hilton, McDonalds, etc.. all having this
> available, it would push IPv6 very far almost immediately with no adverse
> impact compared to users IPv4 experience.
> > - Jared