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

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:04 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.)
>

This is very doable now with a few caveats - I use an IPv6-only network for
my daily work and have for quite a while. The largest caveat is that for a
workstation / daily driver network an upstream NAT64/DNS64 is more or less
required for backward compatibility to legacy IP resources. However, as far
as running "IPv6-only" on the host, that's very easy on pretty much any
modern OS, and a very large amount of resources are dual stacked so the
translation requirements become less and less every day.


> >> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
ᐧ