IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com> Sat, 02 April 2022 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2143A07AE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 14:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 mPZxNca6uzkg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B2913A07A0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml736-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KW8gz6T63z67LL7; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 05:05:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.138) by fraeml736-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 23:08:05 +0200
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) by mscpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 00:08:04 +0300
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.61]) by fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.61]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 23:08:04 +0200
From: Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
CC: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
Thread-Index: AQHYPWL+iivaR7toLkau7q+5KQunzazKQx8AgAAMoQCAAA6FAIAApH4AgAALFICAAAQtAIAAAngAgAAp1gCAAC+pgIALwGyAgACruQCABCMzgIABDZeAgAAjg1A=
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2022 21:08:04 +0000
Message-ID: <1c44a648d0944a5ea5bc7a2ae37daabb@huawei.com>
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com> <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com> <YjmJQMNgnJoSInUw@Space.Net> <D75EF08F-6A41-41B2-AFB2-649CBCC1D83E@consulintel.es> <CAPt1N1nRnYUFA=yyJHx6t52yqWbmcd2Tf1H8gQuCZBd3Q3VqJw@mail.gmail.com> <7F4AEB43-4B24-4A21-AE9D-3EB512B98C46@consulintel.es> <8fac4314b8244ba6b33eea68694296d0@huawei.com> <9A13E47B-75D0-443F-9EE9-D2917ACB2D0F@consulintel.es> <CAO42Z2xUG+BXj+VQpajed9aGjH+q-HR7RX7C-T4DsTbouz7xWQ@mail.gmail.com> <4a9981c11c48425b92a6afa9bce992e8@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2zpNunW=Chou+QDvOxd94r7WPqCdUg-3cODs9OCbiuGMg@mail.gmail.com> <3ed52b71-843c-1fd6-e7d5-c967d74cb97c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ed52b71-843c-1fd6-e7d5-c967d74cb97c@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.48.200.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1c44a648d0944a5ea5bc7a2ae37daabbhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OTscs-KcDt-yBpbgpIMcH_y2hH0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 02 Apr 2022 21:08:14 -0000

Hi Brian,



As far as I know, ISPs have the power to move consumers/SOHOs to IPv6, but they don't have the power to move big enterprises to IPv6.  Some big enterprises have moved to IPv6 on their own initiative.  For example, I know one of the big European super-market chains moved to IPv6 for the following reason:



IPv4 address planning:

  *   Store: 1024 * 12000 stores= 12M. (500 addresses per Store is the real need)
  *   Warehouse: 64K * 180 warehouses= 11.52M
  *   Office campus: 64K * 100 campuses = 6.4M

30M of IP addresses is required (Reminder: 10/8 is just 16 million of addresses).





-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 10:53 PM
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input



On 02-Apr-22 17:47, Mark Smith wrote:

...



> Even ISPs that deploy IPv6 are doing it for business and financial reasons. The two first hand instances I have experience with are (a) for marketing reasons around 10 years ago, because the company liked to consider itself a technology leader and (b) to save IPv4 CGNAT costs.



(b) seems to be why ISPs will progressively prefer to push mobile, domestic and SOHO users towards IPv6 and to box IPv4AAS into as small a corner as possible. But what will be the cost that causes ISPs to do the same for large enterprises?



    Brian



_______________________________________________

v6ops mailing list

v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email