5 ms·

I don't find it surprising that they can't find a correlation between GDP/growing user base/IPv4 stress and IPv6 deployment. IPv6 deployment is a matter of pol

by ahbs66 8y ago

I don't find it surprising that they can't find a correlation between GDP/growing user base/IPv4 stress and IPv6 deployment. IPv6 deployment is a matter of politics. It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc. That's what decides whether they put a CGNAT in place, whether they buy more IPv4 addresses, or whether they deploy IPv6.

cm2187 8y ago
Also, IPv4 exhaustion doesn’t affect Africa yet, only the American, Asian and European RIR.
bogomipz 8y ago
>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite rare. What would be the politics exactly? Most ISPs run Juniper and Cisco gear in their core, both of these have have been capable of routing v6 for well over a decade now. Additionally if you are running older gear you would have hit the 512K route TCAM limit years ago.[1] None of this would have anything to do with existing support contracts either. You would be pretty hard-pressed to find a rev of JunOS or IOS/NXOS that didn't support v6. It's actually much more efficient to route v6 than v4. The global IPv4 table 719K prefixes now while IPv6 has 52K See: http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ and http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/ http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/ Lastly the fee schedule for IPv6 allocations from RIRs are not cost prohibitive for an ISP. Using ARIN as an example here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html [1] https://blogs.cisco.com/sp/global-internet-routing-table-reaches-512k-milestone https://blogs.cisco.com/sp/global-internet-routing-table-rea...
- ahbs66 8y ago
  >Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? If the rest of your message is true, why are the ipv6 numbers so low, if it's not because of politics?
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    The numbers are not so low, they've simply plateaued recently.
  - Arnt 8y ago
    IPv6 growth has been an almost flat curve for many years. Now suddenly it's not. I personally expected IPv6 growth to slow down gradually. I find it very odd that the growth hit a wall like that. Oversimplifying somewhat: The number of new v6-capable users increased every month, then boom, zero. I also find it odd that politics would have no effect at 13% or 14% deployment and then block growth entirely at 15%.
    - bogomipz 8y ago
      Then please explain exactly what these "politics" are then rather just throwing around the word around in the abstract. I find it odd that people say "oh its politics" without explaining what or how IPv6 is being "politicized."
      - Arnt 8y ago
        People appear to use the word "politics" to mean any motivation that's very weakly connected to the matter at hand, but rather instead to another relationship between the parties. Ill will from a previous confrontation, for example. Or a general desire to prevent department x from meeting more of the Quarterly Corporate Targets than department y does. In this context it has to mean something that didn't impede IPv6 growth at all for a while, then suddenly blocked IPv6 growth completely. Can't imagine what it would be. (Sorry, didn't notice the comment until much too long had passed. I realise noone's going to read this. Oh well.)

by ahbs66 8y ago

cm2187 8y ago

Also, IPv4 exhaustion doesn’t affect Africa yet, only the American, Asian and European RIR.

bogomipz 8y ago

>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite rare. What would be the politics exactly? Most ISPs run Juniper and Cisco gear in their core, both of these have have been capable of routing v6 for well over a decade now. Additionally if you are running older gear you would have hit the 512K route TCAM limit years ago.[1] None of this would have anything to do with existing support contracts either. You would be pretty hard-pressed to find a rev of JunOS or IOS/NXOS that didn't support v6. It's actually much more efficient to route v6 than v4. The global IPv4 table 719K prefixes now while IPv6 has 52K See: http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ and http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/ http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/ Lastly the fee schedule for IPv6 allocations from RIRs are not cost prohibitive for an ISP. Using ARIN as an example here: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html [1] https://blogs.cisco.com/sp/global-internet-routing-table-reaches-512k-milestone https://blogs.cisco.com/sp/global-internet-routing-table-rea...

ahbs66 8y ago
>Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? If the rest of your message is true, why are the ipv6 numbers so low, if it's not because of politics?
- bogomipz 8y ago
  The numbers are not so low, they've simply plateaued recently.
- Arnt 8y ago
  IPv6 growth has been an almost flat curve for many years. Now suddenly it's not. I personally expected IPv6 growth to slow down gradually. I find it very odd that the growth hit a wall like that. Oversimplifying somewhat: The number of new v6-capable users increased every month, then boom, zero. I also find it odd that politics would have no effect at 13% or 14% deployment and then block growth entirely at 15%.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    Then please explain exactly what these "politics" are then rather just throwing around the word around in the abstract. I find it odd that people say "oh its politics" without explaining what or how IPv6 is being "politicized."
    - Arnt 8y ago
      People appear to use the word "politics" to mean any motivation that's very weakly connected to the matter at hand, but rather instead to another relationship between the parties. Ill will from a previous confrontation, for example. Or a general desire to prevent department x from meeting more of the Quarterly Corporate Targets than department y does. In this context it has to mean something that didn't impede IPv6 growth at all for a while, then suddenly blocked IPv6 growth completely. Can't imagine what it would be. (Sorry, didn't notice the comment until much too long had passed. I realise noone's going to read this. Oh well.)