[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lee Howard
lee at asgard.org
Sat Oct 5 15:05:39 CEST 2019
On 10/4/19 4:55 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > not being able to get a > static IPv6 address out of comcast, my hurricane tunnel getting blocked > by netflix, the still-huge prefix sub-distribution problem. The idea of > dynamic 2 week prefixes in part of the world prone to earthquakes > doesn't work for me... I can think of several programmatic ways to deal with that. Or you can just buy Comcast's business service, which I think includes one IPv4 address. > that said, we need more running code, still, which only then can > get into a deployment, and nobody's funding that. Do you mean CeroWRT specifically, or code in general? I was thinking about some Hackathon projects to add IPv6 capability to open source projects. Seems to me the hardest part is making sure there's an adequate test environment. >>> But Mr.Rey's reference about IPv6 deployment rates also makes a good point! >> Nobody cares about deployment rates. What good does it do, if people don't use it ? >> This is more realistic : https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html >> During the week, we are below 25%. (Replying to an item upthread) APNIC's statistics show that in almost every network that has IPv6, it is almost always used. > One entertaining thing I've been up to is checking the state of multiple > kinds of deployment in the coffee shops of the world with a string > of simple tests anyone can do (after we package them up better) Yeah, we need the GoGo and ATTWifi and such of the world to deploy. > Since there was demand for more IPv4, perhaps that would also fuel > more updates to ipv6, as > both require middlebox updates... > > As for money to make middleboxes better in *any* way, don't make me > laugh. During the cerowrt project we approached everybody making money > from the internet and multiple non-profits and got nowhere. I spent > my own fortune on it, and got a lot of volunteers onboard, especially > in the openwrt universe... and made things better, but I got nothing left. > > We need a new kame-like project to jointly handle the cracks in the > ipv6 network architecture, standards and code, at the very least. > > The costs of "mo ipv4" are trivial in comparison. Another thought I've had: One of the reasons small ISPs can't deploy IPv6 is that they don't control the features in the CPE, because they don't buy enough. I know a couple CPE vendors who would be happy to provide a specific feature set for a guaranteed purchase of a couple thousand units a month. This sounds like a good business to me: if a bunch of small ISPs each contract for a specific number of units, but require RIPE-554, RFC7084, and RFC8085, we could both get the needed features, and get a larger volume discount than they get now. Saving $1 per CPE is better than spending $20 for an IPv4 address for every new user. Please confirm my math. :) > >> 3 months ago, I turned DECNET off on my network. It was actually not >> even an IT/network decision; customer decided they were done with a >> product, and we de-commissioned the tools with DECNET. Business >> decision. We run OS/2 Warp, MS-DOS, Windows 95, HPUX, Solaris, Windows >> 2000, and I probably forget some. > Please note the ipv4 extensions stuff won't work with most that > "legacy" ipv4 stuff. > It can, however, enable new applications and services to exist. Most of > the IOT and SDN stacks already do work. Most don't have decent ipv6 support > due to resource constraints. > > Perversely I kind of like the idea of a portion of the internet immune from > legacy windows worms and viruses.... DECNET isn't on the Internet. I don't care if some crusty old boxes in dark corners of data centers whisper IPv4 among themselves. How would I even know? > >> In 20 years, I will still need IPv4. > And it seems possible we can make more. > >> And I have enough IPv4 on my hands for the foreseeable future. I bought some recently, just in case. >> >> >> I encourage the WG group to read this : >> https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/02/20/report-on-ipv6-get-ready-for-a-mixed-internet-world/ >> And the full text : >> https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IPv6-Migration-Study-final-report.pdf >> Serious work, paid by ICANN. > We cited that work in our presos on this subject as that was also key > on gilmore, paul wouters and myself to start looking hard at what it > would take to make ipv4 better in multiple ways. Please look it over!? > > The ipv4 unicast extensions project is one outgrowth of that: A string > of trivial patches to a couple OSes and routing daemons and we're well > on our way to being able to add 420m new addresses to the internet, > within a 10 year time horizon. You just mentioned your un-upgradable "OS/2 Warp, MS-DOS, Windows 95, HPUX, Solaris, Windows 2000," and now you say it's easy to upgrade. Lee
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]