IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Wed, 06 August 2014 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@Space.Net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4621B29C2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 05:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XFz4n1pyTOo0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 05:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0507C1B29A5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 05:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E3060961 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:41:45 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25BE86097A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:41:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 85156 invoked by uid 1007); 6 Aug 2014 14:41:45 +0200
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:41:45 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Message-ID: <20140806124145.GV51793@Space.Net>
References: <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <4F7D76F6-BD81-453B-94DC-A3C3DFF68505@delong.com> <8600C096-37D0-4651-92C1-BCFDBA674433@nominum.com> <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com> <C5281716-DC04-42E6-AC82-0D53E5DA0284@nominum.com> <53E1236A.605@fud.no> <m1XEkJJ-0000BuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140805195402.GO51793@Space.Net> <m1XElwg-0000BbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AQTanNRm4FKPIqNf"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m1XElwg-0000BbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5R5qs3NpVZwFJCQijnAr7yMF9dY
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:41:49 -0000

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:06:57PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> In your letter dated Tue, 5 Aug 2014 21:54:02 +0200 you wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 09:22:10PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> The question is then, why not simply run on RFC-1918 addresses internally?
> >
> >Why have dual everything inside, when single IPv6 is sufficient to 
> >achieve service delivery?  Dual everything is *dual* *work*, translating
> >to real money out in the real world.
> 
> I think it is safe to say that providing good IPv4 service is the most
> important requirement. In many cases, it is perfectly fine to not provide
> any IPv6 if it cannot be provided at reasonable cost / performance.

Uh.  Welcome to 2014.  Please take a look at current internet offerings
at mass market are still growing - what you'll see is "native
IPv6 plus DS-Lite (or other NAT444) for IPv4".

If someone cares about their content, they will aim to avoid the 
instabilities added by the NAT444 box on the eyeball side.  As Lorenzo
predicted about 10 years ago.

> (note, looking at this from business point of view. Not as somebody who
> care about the future of the internet).

*Especially* from a business point of view, adding a focus on IPv4 is
very short sighted...

> So instead of doing a relatively straightforward NAT44 or NAT444 and then
> let IPv6 pay for itself, you now make the cost of providing IPv6 part of the
> cost of providing IPv4.

... and a "relatively straightforward NAT44" on the server side *is not*,
as soon as you have a data center and traffic of any noticeable volume - 
see Tore's mail about details why that is almost always undesirable.

(You might want to check the amount of money Cisco takes for a 40G-NAT44-
Card...)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email