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

Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org> writes:

> Replying to the Subject question. . .
>
> The WG has done good work. RIPE-554 in particular I think is good work.
>
> This WG isn't a marketing organization. That's appropriate.

I'm not normally part of this wg, I just got sucked in because a poster
cited a bunch of unicast extensions project work out of context.

> One way to look at the problem is that IPv4 exhaustion is a problem of
> externalities: my network is growing, and it costs me more now because
> you don't support IPv6. As an economic problem, then, think about how
> to shift your costs to those who have only IPv4.
>
> IPv6 deployment in your network means cutting your NAT expense in
> half. More, as more sites deploy.

There's no fungable or measureable "NAT expense". NAT generally saves
money. Look at the container market for one recent example.

>
> IPv6 deployment in your network might mean you can sell some of your
> IPv4 addresses, a clever way I've seen to fund the transition.

That I agree with. But I see no sign anyone is actually doing that. It's
saner to horde at the moment.

>
> IPv6 deployment on your web site means improving your page load time,
> and therefore SEO, and therefore revenue. At NANOG I showed quotes
> that IPv6 increases revenue by 0.2%-7%.[1]

BS. Happy eyeballs costs time.

> The cost to deploy IPv6 is not high: it's mostly labor, and people who

BS. It needs to be implemented first in a deployable state.


> complain that there's no training are ignoring the hundreds of
> tutorials, books, articles, videos, and web sites available to them
> for free, not to mention the thousands of friendly engineers.
>
> To everyone who sees a high cost, I ask whether you know the value of
> NAT reduction and web site speed (and avoiding buying addresses, or

I note that port exhaustion is a real thing on ipv4 networks today that
more should measure. In one recent set of "coffee shop tests", I had an
over 30% initial syn failure rate. I don't know why (we were also
testing ecn) at the moment, but that was a shocking number.

ipv4 dns with udp was already using up a lot of udp port space.
with quic eating up a lot of udp more, I'm not happy.

JUST deploying dns over IPv6 as I did saved tons of udp port space
under nat. That was a win.

> selling addresses), in $LOCAL_CURRENCY, so you can evaluate every
> obstacle you might encounter. For instance, "Our web conferencing
> doesn't support IPv6, and it'll cost us $9,000 a year to change. But
> IPv6 will save us $30,000." The decision is easy.

That last number is pure BS. It's not a single cost. It's that last
dangling set of apps that can't be converted to ipv6 that's the infinite
cost.

>
> In another message on this thread I noted that small ISPs are squeezed
> between CPE and IPv4 purchases. They can't get CPE that supports IPv6,
> or that supports MAP or 464xlat, because they don't buy enough, so
> they have to pay to buy addresses.

They can't get cheap CPE that has those features. ALL that code runs
great in openwrt.

And ipv4 addresses are needed until ipv6 hits 100% deployment.

> That's easily solved by collective
> action: 100 small ISPs can get the features they want (at a better
> discount) than one acting alone.

Great. Is there an ISP association trying to do that already?

>
> In the mean time, this WG keeps having fascinating presentations,
> which I keep using when talking about IPv6 to enterprise IT
> departments. Keep it up.