| |||||||||||||
LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open netLCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open netPosted Jan 26, 2011 16:39 UTC (Wed) by jem (subscriber, #24231)Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
I don't understand why ISPs would want to start messing with (IPv4) NAT instead of providing pure IPv6 addresses to customers, combined with NAT64. Modern operating systems and applications are IPv6-ready already, and have been for quite some time. The problem is more the network itself.
Of course, you would want to be able to access IPv4-only hosts and for that the ISPs would translate between the customer's IPv6 addresses and the legacy v4 addresses.
(Log in to post comments)
The answer is obvious: money. Posted Jan 26, 2011 17:42 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You need a lot of layers of NAT before it'll be as expensive as IPv6. And to provide NAT64 with IPv6 for the end-user just makes no sense: why will they do that? It'll provide worse experience for larger price. Actually the US is probably the last country where "white IP" is not considered luxury. In the most parts of the word you must pay extra for it - and I fail to see why exhaustion of addresses will change anything short-term. It'll gradually make these addresses more expensive, that's true, but short-term there will be no change.
The answer is obvious: money. Posted Jan 26, 2011 18:33 UTC (Wed) by jem (subscriber, #24231) [Link]
So IPv6 is expensive, but NAT is not? What makes IPv6 so expensive?
That's not my experience, anyway. Of course, there aren't many providers offering IPv6 yet, but the one I know of in my area does not charge anything extra for IPv6. It's part of the package, take it or leave it. Tunnels are free, too.
How do ISPs respond when customers complain they can't reach IPv6-only sites? Sure, this won't happen for a while, but eventually it will.
End-to-end solution is expensive... Posted Jan 26, 2011 20:44 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] So IPv6 is expensive, but NAT is not? What makes IPv6 so expensive? I've not said NAT is not expensive. But it's less expensive then NAT+IPv6. That's not my experience, anyway. You mean: you have case study where ISP implemented NAT64 and saved money (in comparison to plain old NAT)? Hard to believe, but I'll be interested to hear more about your story. How do ISPs respond when customers complain they can't reach IPv6-only sites? Sure, this won't happen for a while, but eventually it will. I think they'll tell you these sites are broken and you should ask for them to be fixed. If you'll press they'll admit that yes, it may be fixed on their said and that they are "investigating it". The answer is the same for the last 10 years, so I doubt it'll change any time soon.
The answer is obvious: money. Posted Jan 27, 2011 11:18 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
That's silly. I had no problem acquiring a class C network for one of my customers in Europe last year. I just filled out the application and that was it, didn't pay anything extra.
The moment IP address blocks will have economic value we'll be stuck in a downward spiral with no escape. Companies would want to "protect their investments" and we'd have no possibility of ever fixing any technical issues with IP ever again.
LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net Posted Jan 26, 2011 18:53 UTC (Wed) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] Really? You think provisioning residential customers with IPv6 only would be a seamless experience today?
Okay, here's an experiment to try. Grab my NAT64 daemon and install it on your edge router. It should take you about 15 minutes. Then disable IPv4 on your LAN and see what still works. Go ahead, I'll wait.
For the rest of you, here is a small list of the things that will NOT work out-of-the-box on an IPv6-only network:
It's looking increasingly likely that CGN will be the future for most residential customers, with only the lucky ones getting IPv6.
LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net Posted Jan 27, 2011 12:28 UTC (Thu) by Quazatron (guest, #4368) [Link] I think that list would make a good addition to the FAQ on your site.
|
|||||||||||||