IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 30 September 2021 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 A2E653A0E59 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.com
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 B1YwTbwpDXGI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70093A0902 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:d12c:2b24:7049:d8a]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 18UIJQqZ3559712 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:19:27 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 18UIJQqZ3559712
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1633025970; bh=yIU66ZxLohPabkTK9v1MNiHpTlBdY3//5HyrhI1yFPE=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=C/Itzsj49CiSJjfA4Q8Y9fDiM9BRkbRJksKeNqwtznMPYuslVHwpTqBKmlO6/VuH5 fSfolUrf0ECOpBnTBLTz4dSQj+7N22eZrEBuLKHZMdJ0prPhQuhaS6IokHX3QSrjov SpeFBOn2KQ1o5gpeml1u3vv+LlC7JjRvt1RtmEf4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BFA62544-8E8A-4D1F-A637-827B90211DAB@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:19:26 -0700
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Jen Linkova <furry@google.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C6D358E5-C804-4484-BAD1-9976917B7B2B@delong.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wdoSdJDOB2Zo0=ZK0ecOARRsdg2nbHZGSDOhryPbLfDw@mail.gmail.com> <F2BD0A42-E9AD-45DD-999A-638E73BE1177@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr2K3Gd3JD=NJFOoH6GYgs-8ACxRQB9-sKJ7cbF4_hxsow@mail.gmail.com> <0B533C71-5DB0-410D-A5A3-7E8FD559F214@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr3NoYfNT7+OVJoCCdgdif6AHHw29tNCPttS=-NuRZKv3w@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB692426B0EEDDC2C4D78D8EC0C3A89@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr25dtinLBeJpAuJ17NfLg7-ewM9QPvnXNuEJ8wiBQV9ig@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zqf=F6OTDK2e8cMYXdPgMZ=SgFJcn7BTKYGgcYsLT2iw@mail.gmail.com> <894BCFE9-0811-4AE6-9941-6183292E4431@delong.com> <7E8C5F52-596F-4CAB-89EB-B0D5BAF5F612@employees.org> <YVXvgS6GDX97sHOW@Space.Net> <4AF3C29B-4642-4173-A027-0AAAEE65C869@employees.org> <DB9060DC-EBB1-4F02-BD70-C0BF6302CE12@delong.com> <BFA62544-8E8A-4D1F-A637-827B90211DAB@employees.org>
To: otroan@employees.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nKtuZ-iwOAk4xjSAg0HxBJ5mjxI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Why enterprises aren't adopting IPv6 (Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)
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: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:20:13 -0000


> On Sep 30, 2021, at 11:01 , otroan@employees.org wrote:
> 
>>> And if significant deployments still would require NAT with IPv6... the gains over IPv4 are questionable.
>>> (For example the trend of Enterprises to tunnel their traffic to the cloud for "services". Marketing name: SASE.)
>> 
>> True, but I don’t accept the premise. You’re going to have to provide more than a simple allegation that
>> a) NAT has benefits
>> and
>> b) NAT would be the only way to achieve those benefits in IPv6
>> 
>>> End to end is certainly dead.
>> 
>> Why? Again, I remain unconvinced of this.
>> 
>>> So as much as I'd like the purety of the IPv6 architecture, we're not going to do networking like it's 1990 again any time soon.
>> 
>> Seems a lot of people would like it, so what, exactly, is preventing it?
> 
> It's not at all apparent that Enterprises wants it nor would benefit from it. As of now.

Agreed… IMHO, the current frontier that actually matters is content providers.

Forward progress of major content providers would enable monostack eyeballs.

Monostack eyeballs would then become the driver for enterprise. As I mentioned, some of my enterprise
clients are already experiencing this and it is growing.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email