Re: [v6ops] Why enterprises aren't adopting IPv6 (Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)

[[e-mail]]

Owen,

>> What is the main problem IPv6 was designed to solve?
>> 
>> Lack of IPv4 addresses.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> What problem don't many enterprises have since they're using RFC1918s, and could misuse 100.64/10 if they really need to get more.
>> 
>> Most enterprises don't have the main problem that IPv6 is designed to solve.
> 
> Not entirely true… More accurately, many enterprises are able to pretend they don’t have this problem today because of the above.
> 
> However, eyeball providers DO have this problem and its getting worse. Further, eyeball providers are on some of the thinnest margins
> and consumer IP access is at the low end of the market, so paying for more and more IPv4 addresses and more and more expensive
> (and more complex) IPv4 solutions and higher support costs for those IPv4 solutions becomes a non-starter at some point.
> 
> Either consumer access in general will become significantly more expensive, or eyeball providers will start having to find a way to
> surcharge IPv4 services (whether that’s in the form of an IPv4 surcharge or an overall price increase with an IPv6-only discount
> or whatever).

typically they only use a 1/65535th of an IPv4 address ((one TCP port) although they share it at L7).
it would certainly be possible to improve on that.

> I already know enterprises that are experiencing pain because their outsourced contractors in certain parts of the world are basically
> IPv6-only already and the fact that their contractors can’t interact with the corporate network via IPv6 is causing issues.

would you have more details on that.
last time I tried going IPv6 only, that was completely unworkable.
(while doing IPv4 only is perfectly fine.)

>> For IPv6 to be adopted by many enterprises, there will need to be other reasons that are of business value.
> 
> Employee/contractor connectivity is of vale to most enterprises. There’s a time coming when that’s going to require IPv6 support.

that's what we have been saying for 25 years.
perhaps time to accept reality. ;-)

O.