Mailing List Archive

RIPE our of IPv4
Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:

Dear colleagues,

Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.


Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il
Dmitry@interhost.net
Mob: 054-3181182
Sent from Steve's creature
[X]
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Nice!

Is this what I think it is? a historical moment for the internet
for the story books?

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 15:59, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>
> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks
> www.interhost.co.il
> Dmitry@interhost.net
> Mob: 054-3181182
> Sent from Steve's creature



--
--
?in del ?ensaje.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
I think it is less historic than when IANA ran out of blocks to
delegate to the regional registries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:34 AM Tei <oscar.vives@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nice!
>
> Is this what I think it is? a historical moment for the internet
> for the story books?
>
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 15:59, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
> >
> > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dmitry Sherman
> > Interhost Networks
> > www.interhost.co.il
> > Dmitry@interhost.net
> > Mob: 054-3181182
> > Sent from Steve's creature
>
>
>
> --
> --
> ?in del ?ensaje.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>
> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.

Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?

(Admit it, someone had to say it!)

----
Andy Ringsmuth
5609 Harding Drive
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
(402) 304-0083
andy@andyring.com
RE: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
RIP RIPE


-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
To: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4



> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>
> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.

Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?

(Admit it, someone had to say it!)

----
Andy Ringsmuth
5609 Harding Drive
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
(402) 304-0083
andy@andyring.com
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole
"Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:

> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4
> allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have
> now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks
> www.interhost.co.il
> Dmitry@interhost.net
> Mob: 054-3181182
> Sent from Steve's creature
>
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Thanks

I am lurking on this mail list. Sometimes is hard to decipher whats
goin on. Always interesting. You guys are awesome.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 16:57, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it is less historic than when IANA ran out of blocks to
> delegate to the regional registries.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:34 AM Tei <oscar.vives@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nice!
> >
> > Is this what I think it is? a historical moment for the internet
> > for the story books?
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 15:59, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
> > >
> > > Dear colleagues,
> > >
> > > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Dmitry Sherman
> > > Interhost Networks
> > > www.interhost.co.il
> > > Dmitry@interhost.net
> > > Mob: 054-3181182
> > > Sent from Steve's creature
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > ?in del ?ensaje.



--
--
?in del ?ensaje.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.


Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman

[X]

On 25 Nov 2019, at 18:08, Billy Crook <BCrook@unrealservers.net> wrote:

?
Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole "Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net<mailto:dmitry@interhost.net>> wrote:
Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:

Dear colleagues,

Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.


Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il<http://www.interhost.co.il>
Dmitry@interhost.net<mailto:Dmitry@interhost.net>
Mob: 054-3181182
Sent from Steve's creature
[X]
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.

Owen


> On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier <rkremeier@barryelectric.com> wrote:
>
> RIP RIPE
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
> To: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>
>
>
>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>>
>> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>
> Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
>
> (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
>
> ----
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> andy@andyring.com
RE: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
RIP RIPE('s IPV4)*


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 11:19 AM
To: Ryland Kremeier <rkremeier@barryelectric.com>
Cc: Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com>; NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4

RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.

Owen


> On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier <rkremeier@barryelectric.com> wrote:
>
> RIP RIPE
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
> To: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>
>
>
>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>>
>> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>
> Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
>
> (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
>
> ----
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> andy@andyring.com
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Hard to say that something that is in full implementation and use is dead.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:21 AM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier <rkremeier@barryelectric.com> wrote:
> >
> > RIP RIPE
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
> > To: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
> > Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
> >>
> >> Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
> >
> > Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
> >
> > (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
> >
> > ----
> > Andy Ringsmuth
> > 5609 Harding Drive
> > Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> > (402) 304-0083
> > andy@andyring.com
>


--
Jeff Shultz

--
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

  
<https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/>     
<https://www.instagram.com/sctc_503/>     
<https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3>     
<https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos>













_**** This message
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ****_
RE: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
I think the context was referring to RIPE's v4 space being dead.

>
> Hard to say that something that is in full implementation and use is dead.
>
> >
> > RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > >
> > > RIP RIPE
> > >>
> > >> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
> RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.



--- jeffshultz@sctcweb.com wrote:
From: Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz@sctcweb.com>

Hard to say that something that is in full implementation
and use is dead.
-------------------------------------------------------


Ok... In the process of dying a slow, painful, agonizing,
brutal, sickening, won't-just-up-and-friggin-die-already
death. Does that work? :)

scott
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
But IPv4 is ripe. You have just become accustomed to the stench of NAT that you don’t realise it.

--
Mark Andrews

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 05:31, Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz@sctcweb.com> wrote:
>
> ?Hard to say that something that is in full implementation and use is dead.
>
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:21 AM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier <rkremeier@barryelectric.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> RIP RIPE
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
>>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
>>> To: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
>>> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>>>
>>> Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
>>>
>>> (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Andy Ringsmuth
>>> 5609 Harding Drive
>>> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
>>> (402) 304-0083
>>> andy@andyring.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Shultz
>
> --
> Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!
>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/>
> <https://www.instagram.com/sctc_503/>
> <https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3>
> <https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _**** This message
> contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual
> named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
> distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
> from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does
> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
> message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ****_
>
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is mostly happening today with CGN.

Every server that offers services to the public should be making them available over IPv6. Most of the CDNs support both transports. Why are you scared to tick the box for IPv6? HTTPS doesn’t care which transport is used.

--
Mark Andrews

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>
> ? I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Sherman
>
>
>
>>> On 25 Nov 2019, at 18:08, Billy Crook <BCrook@unrealservers.net> wrote:
>>>
>> ?
>> Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole "Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>>> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dmitry Sherman
>>> Interhost Networks
>>> www.interhost.co.il
>>> Dmitry@interhost.net
>>> Mob: 054-3181182
>>> Sent from Steve's creature
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Because we can’t only use ipv6 on the boxes, each box with ipv6 must have IPv4 until the last eyeball broadband user will have ipv6 support.

Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il
Dmitry@interhost.net
Mob: 054-3181182
Sent from Steve's creature
[X]

On 25 Nov 2019, at 21:47, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

? It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is mostly happening today with CGN.

Every server that offers services to the public should be making them available over IPv6. Most of the CDNs support both transports. Why are you scared to tick the box for IPv6? HTTPS doesn’t care which transport is used.

--
Mark Andrews

On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:

? I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.


Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman

[X]

On 25 Nov 2019, at 18:08, Billy Crook <BCrook@unrealservers.net> wrote:

?
Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole "Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net<mailto:dmitry@interhost.net>> wrote:
Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:

Dear colleagues,

Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.


Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il<http://www.interhost.co.il>
Dmitry@interhost.net<mailto:Dmitry@interhost.net>
Mob: 054-3181182
Sent from Steve's creature
[X]
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
The two things feed each other. Big content networks have had IPv6 for
years now, and the mobile phone networks are primarily, if not
exclusively IPv6 on the inside.

Adding IPv6 now helps push the cycle forward, whether you are an
eyeball, content, or other network.

Doug


On 11/25/19 11:50 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
> Because we can’t only use ipv6 on the boxes, each box with ipv6 must
> have IPv4 until the last eyeball broadband user will have ipv6 support.
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks
> www.interhost.co.il
> Dmitry@interhost.net
> Mob: 054-3181182
> Sent from Steve's creature
>
>> On 25 Nov 2019, at 21:47, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>
>> ? It requires both sides to move to IPv6.  Why should the cost of
>> maintaining working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks?
>> That is what is mostly happening today with CGN.
>>
>> Every server that offers services to the public should be making them
>> available over IPv6.   Most of the CDNs support both transports. Why
>> are you scared to tick the box for IPv6?  HTTPS doesn’t care which
>> transport is used.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Andrews
>>
>>> On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> ? I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and
>>> move to v6.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dmitry Sherman
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 25 Nov 2019, at 18:08, Billy Crook <BCrook@unrealservers.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>> Huh.  I guess we get to go home early today then?  And look into
>>>> that whole "Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net
>>>> <mailto:dmitry@interhost.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22
>>>> IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our
>>>> available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Dmitry Sherman
>>>> Interhost Networks
>>>> www.interhost.co.il <http://www.interhost.co.il>
>>>> Dmitry@interhost.net <mailto:Dmitry@interhost.net>
>>>> Mob: 054-3181182
>>>> Sent from Steve's creature
>>>>
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
> >
> > ? I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.

> It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining
> working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is
> mostly happening today with CGN.

I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
organizations deploying dual-stack, and eyeball networks can more easily
move a /16 or even bigger to mostly IPv6 and a small CGNAT address space
than content providers can free up IPv4 addresses during the time that dual
stack is still needed.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Most eyeball networks (by organization count) don't have a /16 in the first place, much less one to give.


Obviously something like 90% of the population is in the top 10 providers and the rest of the population is in the other several thousand providers.


(Numbers are out of thin air, but illustrate the point.)




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

----- Original Message -----

From: "Valdis Kl?tnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
To: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
Cc: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron@heyaaron.com>, "NANOG mailing list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 3:47:37 PM
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
> >
> > ??? I believe it???s Eyeball network???s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.

> It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining
> working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is
> mostly happening today with CGN.

I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
organizations deploying dual-stack, and eyeball networks can more easily
move a /16 or even bigger to mostly IPv6 and a small CGNAT address space
than content providers can free up IPv4 addresses during the time that dual
stack is still needed.
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 2019-11-25 1:47 PM, Valdis Kl?tnieks wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
>>> On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.
>
>> It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining
>> working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is
>> mostly happening today with CGN.
>
> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new
> organizations deploying dual-stack

Right, which is why we started warning folks about this issue 10+ years
ago, when IPv4 was still plentiful and cheap.

But even content networks have NAT options, and while most of them are
not pretty, the options become more limited every day that passes.

I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.

Doug
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 11/26/19 4:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.

If it weren't for the ongoing need to continue to support IPv4
reachability (i.e. if we'd flag-day'd several years ago), I think the
(admittedly non-scientific) answer to that question is that we have
already passed it.

However, in the face of continuing need for IPv4 reachability, I'm less
sure. I think that the incremental cost to deploy and support IPv6 is
probably no more than the incremental savings of CGNAT headaches for
service providers caused by offloading what traffic you can to native
IPv6. Those savings from not just from capacity savings (which can be
extreme to totally trivial depending on your size) but also support for
having 3rd party services properly treat an SP customer as an individual
customer rather than the results of multiple SP customers being lumped
onto a small CGNAT target pool.

That is, even if you are 100% committed to needing to run a functional
CGNAT as a service provider and deal with everything that entails, I
think it's probably STILL in your short-term economic best interest to
deploy IPv6 simply due to the reduction in scope of "everything that
entails".
--
Brandon Martin
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
On 2019-11-25 20:26, Brandon Martin wrote:
> On 11/26/19 4:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6.
>> Or, folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what
>> point
>> rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
>
> If it weren't for the ongoing need to continue to support IPv4
> reachability (i.e. if we'd flag-day'd several years ago), I think the
> (admittedly non-scientific) answer to that question is that we have
> already passed it.
>
> However, in the face of continuing need for IPv4 reachability, I'm
> less sure. I think that the incremental cost to deploy and support
> IPv6 is probably no more than the incremental savings of CGNAT
> headaches for service providers caused by offloading what traffic you
> can to native IPv6. Those savings from not just from capacity savings
> (which can be extreme to totally trivial depending on your size) but
> also support for having 3rd party services properly treat an SP
> customer as an individual customer rather than the results of multiple
> SP customers being lumped onto a small CGNAT target pool.
>
> That is, even if you are 100% committed to needing to run a functional
> CGNAT as a service provider and deal with everything that entails, I
> think it's probably STILL in your short-term economic best interest to
> deploy IPv6 simply due to the reduction in scope of "everything that
> entails".

I think this is spot on. The only thing I'd add is that the costs to
deploy IPv6 will remain fairly constant or perhaps go down some over
time as economies of scale continue to grow, whereas the costs for
continuing to prop up IPv4 will only increase.

Doug
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us wrote:

> I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.

When the MBAs start realizing the risk of not deploying it.

I have some inside knowledge about the IPv6 efforts of a large eyeball network. In that particular case, the cost of deploying IPv6 internally is not simply configuring it on the network gear; that has already been done. The cost of fully supporting IPv6 includes (but is probably not limited to):

- Support for deploying IPv6 across more than 20 different teams;
- Modifying old (ancient) internal code;
- Modifying old (ancient) database structures (think 16 character fields for IP addresses);
- Upgrading/replacing load balancers and other legacy crap that only support IPv4 (yeah, they still exist);
- Modifying the countless home-grown tools that automate firewalls etc;
- Auditing the PCI infrastructure to ensure it is still compliant after deploying IPv6;

If it was as simple as upgrading a few IP stacks here and there, it would be a non-issue.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against IPv6 deployment; on the contrary. But it is not that simple in the real corporate world. Execs have bonus targets. IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of that bonus target: there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.

IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.

Thanks,

Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
Hello,

On 26/11/2019 16:00, nanog-request@nanog.org wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:13:48 -0800 (PST)
> From: Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>
> To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
> Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
> Message-ID:
> <1383247942.183700.1574756028904.JavaMail.zimbra@cluecentral.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us wrote:
>
>> I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
>> folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
>> rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
> When the MBAs start realizing the risk of not deploying it.
>
> I have some inside knowledge about the IPv6 efforts of a large eyeball network. In that particular case, the cost of deploying IPv6 internally is not simply configuring it on the network gear; that has already been done. The cost of fully supporting IPv6 includes (but is probably not limited to):
>
> - Support for deploying IPv6 across more than 20 different teams;
> - Modifying old (ancient) internal code;
> - Modifying old (ancient) database structures (think 16 character fields for IP addresses);
> - Upgrading/replacing load balancers and other legacy crap that only support IPv4 (yeah, they still exist);
> - Modifying the countless home-grown tools that automate firewalls etc;
> - Auditing the PCI infrastructure to ensure it is still compliant after deploying IPv6;
>
> If it was as simple as upgrading a few IP stacks here and there, it would be a non-issue.

No matter how complex is your network (and your teams), from my humble
point of view, there is always something you can do regarding IPv6. The
key is not to solve one million problems on one day. The key is to go
gradually, one small block after another one.
You can even keep all your internal network on v4 (forever if that is
your intent ) and use IPv6 on specific portions of your network.


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against IPv6 deployment; on the contrary. But it is not that simple in the real corporate world. Execs have bonus targets. IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of that bonus target: there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
>
> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.


I would have said the very very minimum could be to invest in a
dual-stack 'proxy' for public-facing services; internal or external
solution, you have the choice.

And why even do that ? Because the other side is not only on IPv4.


--
Willy Manga
@ongolaboy
https://ongola.blogspot.com/
Re: RIPE our of IPv4 [ In reply to ]
If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.

But the RIRs can't live on that.

We have put them under the management of a group of five organizations
which are very dependent on the income from block allocations and no
doubt were hoping IPv6 allocations would be a boon since there will be
very little if any income growth from future IPv4 block allocations.

Worse, once acquired an IPv6 block has so many billions of addresses
very few if any would ever need another allocation so it would hardly
act as a loss leader.

I realize many still would not deploy IPv6 for various reasons such as
their equipment doesn't support it or they don't have the in-house
expertise to support it, etc tho I can't think of much other etc, a
few points of resistance do come up.

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

1 2 3 4  View All