Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

Thus spake "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
> > > Dual-stacking hosts is a non-problem.  For the majority of
> > > deployed hosts, it is already done.
> > That depends on the definition you're using.  Many hosts are
> > v6-capable, though I'd still debate whether it's the majority.
> > Very, very few of those hosts have working v6 connectivity
> > because there's some device(s) or provider(s) between the
> > host and the DFZ that are v4-only.
> agreed, but you were talking about hosts.
I do not consider a host dual-stacked, regardless of whether it's 
v6-capable, unless it can actually talk to remote hosts via v6.  That may be 
imprecise on my part, but it's all that matters in the end.
> > It's humans and software, not hardware, that is generally the
> > problem getting v6 deployed.
> agreed about humans - mindshare is the hardest thing to
> overcome.  the software/hardware question is a distinction
> without a significant difference.   if the products (you think) you
> need to secure your network aren't shipping, it doesn't matter
> much whether what you need is new hardware or a software
> upgrade.  often, that's just a matter of packaging.
Ah, but there is a difference.  Hardware is purchased in a 3+ year cycle, 
and generally involves significant capital outlay.  Most hardware is 
v6-capable by this point, though apparently there's still issues in the 
load-balancer space that are preventing major content sites from 
dual-stacking.
OTOH, v6 software is still not available from the majority of vendors, but 
if they do release it, it could be a free update (perhaps within the terms 
of a service contract) and deployed at any time.
The distinction is moot, I'll agree, in parts of the market like consumer 
CPE where the vendors have a history of only releasing new software on new 
hardware, so a v6 upgrade will require hundreds of millions of people to buy 
new boxes even though their existing boxes would do v6 just fine if the 
vendors bothered to release new code for them.
> > There's a lot of focus on NAT-PT for v6 sites to access
> > remote v4-only sites; I'm focusing on the case of v4-only sites
> > using NAT-PT to access remote v6-only sites.
> that's certainly an important case, but there are better ways
> than NAT-PT for v6-only sites to provide services to v4-only
> users.
Perhaps.  However, every other model I've seen assumes that all of those 
v6-only sites should pay the cost of making their services v4-accessible. 
That puts the cost in the wrong place, since it's v4-only sites that should 
be penalized for being laggards -- not the v6 early adopters, and also 
assumes that v4 addresses will remain available for them to implement those 
solutions.  In a few years, that will no longer be true.
> > > There are basically two incentives to support IPv6: one is
> > > more addresses, the other is a better behaved network that
> > > is capable of supporting a wider range of applications at
> > > lower cost.  If NAT-PT is widely deployed, the second
> > > incentive is removed.
> > No, the second incentive remains.  Fully deploying v6 is still
> > a good idea because it removes the problems inherent to
> > NAT-PT, which I've already acknowledged.
> yes, but everyone else's NAT-PT boxes still keep you from
> getting most of the benefit from your upgrade to full IPv6.
In the short term, yes.  OTOH, if everyone deploys NAT-PT today, then 
tomorrow it will _appear_ that the entire Internet is v6-capable, and I can 
convince management that deploying v6 "for real" is worth the effort. 
Today, there is virtually nobody I can reach with v6, so management isn't 
interested, resulting in a chicken-and-egg problem.
> IETF is useless if it doesn't try to describe what will work well
> in the long term.
We all agree on the long-term vision.  What we disagree on is what is the 
best method to get there from where we are today.  I think that NAT-PT is no 
less evil than the v4 NAT we're using now and will get us to a NAT-free 
v6-only Internet faster than other strategies proposed.  The shorter the 
transition is, the better things will be for all of us in the end.
S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf