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

On 10/5/19 12:06 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org> writes:
>
>
>> 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.

If you have a dedicated box or service card for NAT, you have a specific 
NAT expense. If you can buy a smaller box for half the cost, you've 
saved a specific amount of money. I know of mobile carriers who NATted 
every Internet connection in IPv4, and have halved their capital expense 
on NAT.


>> 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.

I've had inquiries along these lines, and written proposals.


>> 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.

Here's my assessment: https://www.retevia.net/why-is-ipv6-faster/

>> 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.

"Deployable"? It's been deployed by the millions. Everyone who's done it 
says it was mostly labor.

>> 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 exaustion 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

Interesting!


>
>> 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.

I'm not sure what you're calling "BS." Obviously $30,000 was a made-up 
number for the example. I don't know what "dangling set of apps" you 
mean that can't be converted, especially in the context of "How much 
would it cost to add IPv6 support?"

>> 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.

Fewer IPv4 addresses are needed in the context of MAP or 464xlat.

>> 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?

Not that I know of. If there's interest, I'll support, maybe organize.

Lee