nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
From: Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:03:07 -0400
On 6/19/14 11:13 PM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> wrote:On 6/19/14 4:30 PM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:So, I was focusing on the end-user (Consumer) set because given enough migration there that should push more application folk in the right direction.
Why? Some content providers have said that they think IPv4 runout is an ISP problem. As long as users have IPv4, there's no reason for them to move. What percentage of eyeballs would need to be dual-stack for app folk to decide to support IPv6?
I think ipv6 still suffers from the chicken/egg problem: 1) users aren't asking so isps aren't selling/doing 1b) ISPs still ahve v4 or a solution (they think) to no-more-v4 and can keep rolling new customers out
I simply don't think this is the case anymore, at least in the U.S. IPv6 deployment to users is huge, and will automatically snowball as old CPE cycles out. Mid-sized operators will be coming up this year. Half of mobile is done. I don't know of any U.S. ISP or wireless carrier that is planning to use the address market or CGN as their exhaustion strategy.
2) content places have no one they can't reach today because there's v4 to everyone that they care about 3) both sides still playing chicken. oh well, see you on this same conversation in another 18 months time?
I've said this several times, so for the record, here's my prediction: After ARIN runs out, and it may be 1-3 years after ARIN runs out, ISPs will incur the rising costs of IPv4 (through CGN or the address market). Eventually, costs will be so high that they offer IPv6 at a lower price, either for paid peering or to consumers. At that point, content providers will have a financial reason to migrate, and will painfully find that by the time they can do so, they will have already lost the users. To be clear, some content providers support IPv6, and some ISPs support IPv6. It's everybody else we need to move. And until they do, the Internet will be more expensive, or fragmented, or both. Also for the record: My prediction does not reflect any knowledge of any specific company's plan. Lee
Current thread:
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion, (continued)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Christopher Morrow (Jun 19)
- RE: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Edward Arthurs (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Christopher Morrow (Jun 19)
- RE: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Edward Arthurs (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Christopher Morrow (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Lee Howard (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Christopher Morrow (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Lee Howard (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Christopher Morrow (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Lee Howard (Jun 20)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Matthew Petach (Jun 21)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Owen DeLong (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Karl Auer (Jun 19)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion Vlade Ristevski (Jun 20)
- Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion John Levine (Jun 19)
- Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion) Sadiq Saif (Jun 19)
- Re: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion) William F. Maton Sotomayor (Jun 19)
- Re: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion) jim deleskie (Jun 19)
- Re: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion) William F. Maton Sotomayor (Jun 20)
- Re: Canada and IPv6 Gabriel Blanchard (Jun 19)