On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 01:27:53PM -0800, Alastair Johnson wrote:
On 1/24/15 11:11 AM, Peter Lambrechtsen wrote:
My personal view is I personally doubt there will
be much movement for
the next 5+ years or even more unless the "killer v6" app comes out or
something major happens like Facebook only supporting v6 from a certain
date. There are fairly simple reasons why.
I find that a depressing view.
There's no reason for most ISPs why IPv6
should not be delivered on broadband today, especially from new market
You only need a few sites with IPv6 issues to make it a deficit rather than
a bonus. I personally tried using IPv6 for a while, but I found it reduced
CDN performance, and it broke Facebook for a while. (there's some thread on
Nanog about the Facebook breakage.. although I see more than one of them, and
can't remember which it was)
There is little benefit for users when hole punching fixed most NAT peer to peer
communications, and applications like Skype still don't support it.
Most ISPs have
plenty of spare address space and the retail fixed
broadband market is pretty static.
Even the new players like bigpipe and myrepublic have managed to get v4
address space. And those two didn't launch with a dual stack. Why was
It's been shown that even the new players can survive with CGNat in the
days of Section 92 without needing to log everything I presume.
In the mobile space I can see it happening. But at the same time CGNat
seems to be working for them too.
CGN will not save you, and will add significant capital and operational cost
to any ISP, regardless of technology chosen.
There's not much choice if more IPv4 addresses aren't available. If you run out
of IP addreses you need CGN regardless of whether you have IPv6 support or not,
and IPv6 may decrease the load on the CGN but not remove the necessity of such.
IPv6 has an up-front cost to complete the engineering
to support it; CGN has
costs forever. I do not think that is a wise long term investment - and as
Brian pointed out, the world's largest operators seem to have agreed with
You can't go IPv6 only though. So you still need some level of CGN now or in
I have native IPv6 (dual stack) on my wireline
connection in my US home;
native IPv6 on my US LTE cellular device (dual stack w/ NAT IPv4). Many
operators worldwide have completed the implementation, and IPv6 traffic is
And NZ being part of APNIC has level IP addresses available. You'd think people
would be supporting it quicker...
I'm not against IPv6. But I think it's fine to not be in a huge rush to
it. I'd much rather have 4G coverage on my cellphone than IPv6, even if IPv4 is
natted. And so I'd rather cellphone providers focus on their 4G rollouts.