Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 9, 2015, at 23:08 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam () gmail com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:15:57 -0400, Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote:
> > Actually I was mentioning thousands.
>
> Dozens, millions, whatever. Pick something and get on with it already.

I don’t know anyone that’s going to get upset with you if you deploy /48s to end sites.
Sure, there are lots of /56 advocates out there, but none of them are going to cause grief if you use /48 instead.

ALL of the RIRs accept /48 as an end-site assignment without question.

We picked /48 a long time ago. I’m not sure why longer prefixes keep coming up. I think it’s IPv4-think on the
part of people who can’t get their heads out of the scarcity mentality.

> > What you personally don't foresee is pretty much irrelevant to what will
> > actually happen...
>
> And planning for a future that doesn't happen because you're too caught up in *planning* that future is irrelevant, 
> too.

I’m fully dual-stacked and have a /48 in my house. Do you?

I’ve been implementing IPv6 in various networks for years. I’ve probably dual-stacked more than 100 networks by now.
How many have you done?

I don’t think any of us advocating /48s are sitting here planning without implementing.

> > Like pretty much the entire current generation of net techs, your
> > imagination is limited by your past. But there are kids in school right
> > now who do not suffer from the same limitations - and they will build
> > wonders.
>
> And in ~15 years when they have a jobs, they can change what we built. (assuming ever let the paint dry long enough 
> to use it.)

I tend to think of the internet more like powder-coating. It goes on dry and often comes out half-baked.

> > PS: People keep dissing "home users" saying how they are incapable of
> > understanding stuff and installing all these complex networks. Twenty
> > years ago getting online at home took lots of know-how; getting more
> > than one device online in the home took even more. Now you can just buy
> > a $50 bit of kit, plug it in and your desktops, laptops, smartphones,
> > tablets, televisions, digital radios and wireless sound systems just
> > work. With main and guest networks, multiple wifi protocols, and in many
> > cases basic IPv6 as well. There is no reason to think that the
> > complexity of future networks will not be equally well packaged for the
> > home.
>
> 20 years ago was 1995. It took "some" know how (how to run setup.exe on the floppy you ISP sent you.) Windows 95 made 
> it much easier by having that software in the default OS. Building a network took a bit longer to (a) be 
> wanted/needed and (b) be available and affordable in the home. (few people had more than one computer to network in 
> the first place. Today, you have three of them on your person at any given moment.)
>
> Despite the proliferation of the internet and network tech, the average person today knows even less than two decades 
> ago. Because everything "just works". IPv6 will never get there until it, too, "just works". We're still a long way 
> off in the home -- both because providers aren't doing it, and because the CPE tech is lagging. Mobile by contrast, 
> due to necessity and speed of tech turnover, is there already; you have to intentionally check to know you're using 
> IPv6.

We can agree to disagree… I made good money back then helping home users get their home networks set up because it was 
too hard for them to do themselves as a side gig.

IPv6 is “just working” for a millions of home users that wouldn’t know it if they (or someone else) didn’t deliberately 
check. That’s reality today.

The number is growing fairly quickly as well.

Owen