[KyOSS Discuss] Suggested discussion topic: IPv4 address exhaustion and IPv6 adoption

Britt Dodd brittman914 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 13:27:26 EDT 2012


I believe *this* addresses just what your talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6in4

It's IPv4 traffic encapsulated in IPv6 traffic --- There are several
6-in-4 providers that allow "legacy" IPv4 traffic onto IPv6 networks.
I'm not sure that all of the ISPs are going to follow TW's (or the
other MPAA-agreeing partied ISPs) lead. At least I hope not.

The main beef I have with the Internet (and lots of things for that
matter) is that "consumers" don't fully understand what they use and
how it works --- sure a tablet reaches YouTube, but nobody seems to
care about how/why it works and simply blindly accept major changes to
the underlying infrastructure. That's why ISP's dont invest, the
consumer doesn't care.

I have a re-occuring $10 surcharge on my Sprint bill for the same
reason --- It's labelled as a "Enhanced Phone Fee" --- because I
happened to buy a phone with a 8MP camera, when it initially was a 4G
fee for WiMax that never made it to Louisville. I have to pay the fee
because consumers dont get (and complain) about why having a
8MP-camera smartphone means you have to pay $10 a month.

IPv6 wont happen until it has to, and ISP's dont care about NAT'ing to
oblivion because the consumer doesn't care --- and they don't care
because the magic box just works.

Speaking of TW, when is the Insight/TW switchover happening?

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Barton Chittenden <bartonski at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been reading and thinking about it, and I think that the problem is
> actually a little more pernicious. We all like to think about the internet
> as a nice point to point network where everyone is connected to everyone
> else. However, there are some significant interest groups who would like the
> internet to be a broadcast network: A limited number of content providers,
> and all the rest of the world as consumers. If all of the world's end users
> are hidden behind some ISP's NAT, that is much more what the world looks
> like... so you get no movement at the national or even international level
> (because the lobbyists for Time Warner, Disney, MPAA and all of the Telecoms
> are fighting against it), and you get no movement at the ISP level, because
> of the investments required.
>
> On the up side, I believe that Comcast is using IPv6 on their network
> infrastructure. They provide IPv4 addresses to the customer, but a lot of
> the other stuff is IPv6 (I don't really know what the 'other stuff' consists
> of -- set top boxes? edge routers?).
>
> What I can't figure out is why it isn't possible to have the IPv4 address
> space be a subnet of IPv6... mark off a [tiny] section of the IPv6 address
> space and say 'Ok, the lower 32 bits of this address space get sent off to
> the old internet'.
>
> Maybe that's the way it already works. I don't know.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Alex Hagerman <alex.hagerman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure on the first point, but at least on the second while in a
>> perfect world that sounds great, no ISP is going to let that money grab get
>> away with IPV6.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM, alan blount <alan at zeroasterisk.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But it seems to me (non-networking guy that I am) that you can have both
>>> and route either way, right?
>>>
>>> So providers assign a IPv6 to each of their customers, in addition to the
>>> IPv4, and the world remains happy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Jeff Squyres <jeff at squyres.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note that it's a very different thing to say "there isn't enough demand"
>>>> vs. "we're not going to do it."
>>>>
>>>> Barton is right in that it's a chicken-n-egg problem: providers like
>>>> IgLou won't spent the time/effort to go IPv6 because not enough people (know
>>>> that they) want it.  And not enough people want it because their providers
>>>> are not forcing them to it.  But if providers start forcing people to IPv6
>>>> -- particularly if you're among the first providers to do so -- you'll lose
>>>> customers.
>>>>
>>>> Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Britt Dodd <brittman914 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone needs to inform IgLou of this. They evidentially haven't read
>>>>> the news and don't believe its a problem. I guess they bought a huge
>>>>> block of IPv4 addresses back in the day....I had inquired about IPv6
>>>>> addresses and say said they haven't looked into IPv6 because there
>>>>> wasn't enough demand for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Alan Blount <zeroasterisk at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Sounds like a very interesting topic. Alas I am not going to be
>>>>> > helpful with
>>>>> > the answers to these questions, but I'll be very interested to hear
>>>>> > them.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sep 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Barton Chittenden <bartonski at gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On September 14, RIPE NCC, the European regional internet registry,
>>>>> > started
>>>>> > allocating IP addresses from its last /8 address block. This is the
>>>>> > beginning of the end of the allocation of the IPv4 address space
>>>>> > (i.e.
>>>>> > addresses of the form xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) as we know it. Allocation of
>>>>> > IPv4
>>>>> > addresses in Europe is now strictly rationed.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ARIN (American Registry of Internet Numbers) will be down to its last
>>>>> > /8 by
>>>>> > this time next year.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The long term solution to this problem is to start using IPv6
>>>>> > addresses,
>>>>> > which are essentially unlimited (The address space is so large that
>>>>> > you
>>>>> > could assign about a thousand times the current internet address
>>>>> > space to
>>>>> > each cell of every one of the 7 billion people on earth).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The problem of switching to IPv6 is a chicken-and-egg problem:
>>>>> > internet
>>>>> > users won't switch to IPv6 addresses because there are very few sites
>>>>> > that
>>>>> > they can connect to which use IPv6, and no content providers use IPv6
>>>>> > addresses because no-one visits via IPv6. Most ISPs don't provide
>>>>> > IPv6
>>>>> > addresses (or if they do, no-one realizes that they do).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There are some short-term solutions, but they destroy the
>>>>> > point-to-point
>>>>> > nature of the internet which can cause problems.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I have a decent handle on what's happening and why, but I have zero
>>>>> > experience with setting up a network using IPv6... in many ways, it
>>>>> > should
>>>>> > be transparent (as IPv4 is... you connect your computer to a router
>>>>> > via cat5
>>>>> > cable or wireless, and you're connected). Obviously, it's not quite
>>>>> > that
>>>>> > easy, if it was, we would all be using IPv6 and we wouldn't be
>>>>> > worrying
>>>>> > about running out of address space.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I was wondering if some of the local network gurus could give a talk
>>>>> > about
>>>>> > this:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > A primer on IP addresses in general
>>>>> > What physical steps do I need to take to set up an IPv6 network?
>>>>> > (e.g. a
>>>>> > LAN).
>>>>> > Are there any issues involved with running both IPv4 and IPv6 on the
>>>>> > same
>>>>> > network?
>>>>> > How do I connect to the internet via IPv6?
>>>>> > Will my ISP provide IPv6 addresses?
>>>>> > Are there security issues involved with using IPv6, and if so, how do
>>>>> > I fix
>>>>> > these?
>>>>> > ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Any takers? I would be willing to do the presentation, but, as I
>>>>> > said, I
>>>>> > have zero practical experience, and I think that the topic deserves
>>>>> > more
>>>>> > than hand-waving.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --Barton
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > KyOSS-Discuss mailing list
>>>>> > KyOSS-Discuss at kyoss.org
>>>>> > http://kyoss.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kyoss-discuss
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > KyOSS-Discuss mailing list
>>>>> > KyOSS-Discuss at kyoss.org
>>>>> > http://kyoss.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kyoss-discuss
>>>>> >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> KyOSS-Discuss mailing list
>>>>> KyOSS-Discuss at kyoss.org
>>>>> http://kyoss.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kyoss-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> {+} Jeff Squyres
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> KyOSS-Discuss mailing list
>>>> KyOSS-Discuss at kyoss.org
>>>> http://kyoss.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kyoss-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> KyOSS-Discuss mailing list
>>> KyOSS-Discuss at kyoss.org
>>> http://kyoss.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kyoss-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KyOSS-Discuss mailing list
>> KyOSS-Discuss at kyoss.org
>> http://kyoss.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kyoss-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> KyOSS-Discuss mailing list
> KyOSS-Discuss at kyoss.org
> http://kyoss.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kyoss-discuss
>


More information about the KyOSS-Discuss mailing list