nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:33:41 -0700
On Sep 7, 2021, at 23:50 , Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote: On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:51, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:Hopefully this idea that “you need to do IPv4 anyhow” will die some day soon.Fully agreed, I just don't see the driver. But I can imagine a
$$$$$$ IPv4 continues to increase in cost. Surely, there is a point where organizations start to cry uncle. Surely there is a point where we move from but you have to do IPv4 anyhow to but you have to do IPv6 to support most new things because newcomers don’t want to pay $150/address to get on the legacy network. (Yeah, I know it’s only $50 today, but it was $10 a few years ago and $30 last year).
different timeline where in 2000 several tier1 signed mutual binding contracts to drop IPv4 at the edge in 2020. And no one opposed,
That would have been nice, but that opportunity was missed. I’m thinking that the most hope for this to happen realistically is for eyeball providers to start charging extra to provide IPv4AAS to their customers that need it. I think an announcement from one or two of the major ones would serve as an extreme motivation for the lagging content providers (Are you listening here Amazon? Skype? Google Cloud? AWS? (global load balancing)) to get their shit together. Once they do, there’s really not much “you have to support IPv4 anyway” left, then the eyeballs can shut it off for customers that don’t pay extra and voila… Little incentive remains to continue maintaining IPv4 infrastructure.
because 20 years before was 1980, and 20 years in the future IPv4 wont' anymore be a thing, it's clear due to exponential growth. And we'd all be enjoying a much simplified stack and lower costs all around (vendor, us, customers).
Yep.
Why is this not possible now? Why would we not sign this mutual agreement for 2040? Otherwise we'll be having this same discussion in 2040.
Because markets (and people) are bad at transition and we live in a world of markets and perverse incentives. It’s part of the reason climate change is so hard to address also. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Michael Thomas (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Michael Thomas (Sep 15)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Carsten Bormann (Sep 16)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Tinka (Sep 13)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 13)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Bill Woodcock (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC John Levine (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Fred Baker (Sep 11)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Niels Bakker (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Bjørn Mork (Sep 10)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Andrews (Sep 10)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 19)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC sronan (Sep 06)
- if not v6, what? Michael Thomas (Sep 05)
- Re: if not v6, what? Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: if not v6, what? Eric Kuhnke (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Mark Tinka (Sep 07)