[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

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