[BBLISA] anybody doing IPv6 for real operations?/possible presentation topic

[Internaut at Large]

Greetings,

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 17:25 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> 
> > > Except that there is no killer IPV6 app or service.  There is no one
> > > thing that anyone "just has to do". After 15 years of pie in sky,
> > > IPV6
> > 
> > Oh please, can't we all just get along?
> > 
> > Slow down, cowboy.  I didn't say IPv6 was good or bad.  Did I?
> 
> No...

Hrm ... IPSec is a pretty good killer app.  And the fact that the US
Government has mandated being ready for it, is pretty good in my book as
well.

The fact that it puts all the computers back into server states, instead
of just clients ... that's quite excellent in my book as well.  Being
not an ISP, I want my machines reachable by number not having to create
temporary, elaborate SSH tunnels all over the place to get through the
NAT at my work, through the NAT at the ISP, and then through the third
NAT at my house, because IPv4 is scarce.

> > The question was "how to deploy it" and I gave 2 constructive
> > suggestions.
> 
> And I'm not saying your suggestions are bad---Just that they won't work.  
> For all your good intentions, there is no killer app that will be better
> on IPV6 than on IPV4.

Does there have to be?

>   More precisely: There can be no such app.

I think "having my machines be servers and reachable" is rather nice.
And having IPSec built in is also a bonus.

>   All
> the bells and whistles of IPV6 have been cut out.

Which of your favorite toys were cut out?  Let's see, IPSec, Automatic
recognization via MAC address, ISP independence, and ... well ...
access.  Those are nice bells and whistles for me.

>   Really all you have
> left is wider addresses and a slew of brokenness to use it.  And IPV6
> will be slower and go less places.

Why will it be slower and go less places?  I mean, that's what people
said when we were switching from UUCP to IPv4, that so few people use
it, most of the network will remain UUCP ...

> > Discussions of beauty and truth weren't requested.
> 
> No, but discussion of practicality is.  IPV6 isn't practical, CLNS
> actually is.

CLNS and TP4 are useful if you are an ISP, but for a standard company?
You've got to be kidding.  Using a "Connectionless" interface, hoping
your packets get there?  I'd rather use X.25, thank you very much.

And, in case you missed it, I'm very happy about IPSec which CLNS has no
concept of security for.

I mean, it's great for telephones, and ... Decnet (remember that?)
but ... really, unless you are an ISP, it's somewhat ... the wrong tool
for the job.

> > You called IPv6 a failure.  Technically, we won't know if it is a
> > failure until we run out of IPv4 addresses.  I never thought it would
> > actually be deployed until the last minute.  Did anyone fix Y2K issues
> > in the 1980s?
> 
> Failure and futile efforts at deployment are different.  Before you get
> root to 20,000 routers, you need to have a plan, not just a wonderful
> vision of utopia after the revolution.

Now that sounds _exactly_ like a quote from the beginning of the Y2K
years.  Remember Microsoft 98 (released two years before Y2K) needed Y2K
patches.  Besides, many routers already run IS-IS, which is happy to
pass IPv6.  Oh, wait, you make that point elsewhere, so ... aren't you
arguing both sides of this?

> > True, there are no killer apps today. Except the 2 that I mentioned.
> > The other killer app is "any ISP that has a business plan that depends
> > on growth past 2012". That's a very meaningful and real business case
> > for ISPs, hosting companies, and large web-based businesses.  Sadly
> > there aren't more than handful of those in the world.  Plus, that's an
> > indirect benefit.  People don't buy a car, they buy a way to get from
> > point A to point B.
> 
> ISPs will continue to grow after 2012 on IPV4.  End users get more NATs.  
> E.g Comcast needs very few public IP addresses. Comcast doesn't need a
> nationwide-unique RFC1918 address space either (they complained that
> they have more than 24 million devices)  Most of the billions of IPV4
> users are residential clients of a few million servers. Only servers
> need public IP addresses. There really aren't that many servers,
> especially when you consider that a load balancer only needs one IP to
> front many servers.

Right, I forgot, you are ISP-centric.  The rest of us who actually look
at our machines as _servers_ are not being served by your idea of a good
network.  Really.

> After that, IP addresses are used for infrastructure. CLNS can be used
> instead, again without router upgrades.  There's no need for routers to
> have IPV4 addresses; they just have to be able to route CLNS packets
> that connect users to servers. Think MPLS on the global network.

Actually, a lot of routers, while happy with IS-IS, don't have CLNS or
X.25 enabled on them.  We're back to your "root on 20,000 routers"
problem, I think.

> > Will there be an app that directly draws people to IPv6?  No.  It is a
> > chicken and egg problem.  However, AFTER ipv6 is widely deployed I
> > predict killer apps will arise.
> 
> After I win the lottery, I predict BBLISA will have free beer and
> massages at every meeting.  Don't hold your breath, I don't play the
> lottery.

No, but those of us who do find windfalls often share it, so ... your
argument lacks, my friend.  Besides, many things exist, and are used
without a "killer app" like ... hrm ... let me think, oh, yes, IPv4,
CLNS, IS-IS ...

> > I don't know what they are but they will be in the category of "things
> > you can do in a world without NAT", or one might simplify that to
> > just: "The benefit of IPv6 is that everyone can be their own server".  
> > P2P will go from being a fringe/rare thing, to a common way of doing
> > things.  Not for file sharing, but for everything: IM, phone calls,
> > and hopefully apps that we can't imagine today.
> 
> This was one of the pie in the sky promises. While there is address
> space, your residential ISP won't let you be your own server. You'll
> still be behind a NAT to IPV4 servers, or a NAT to IPV6 servers. The NAT
> is to ensure you aren't running a server at home.

Right, and that's _exactly_ my problem.  _YOU_ are trying to restrict
what _I_ might do with _MY_ servers, the bandwidth _I've_ leased, etc.
Thank you very much Big Brother, but, I'd rather run my servers on my
own.  I like my direct connects, I like being able to get to my data,
and use my various compute farms, that I've set up, directly.  This, I
think, is the heart of the problem.  You, as an ISP-individual, are used
to the Paternalistic Controlling of what I do.  Well, thank you very
much, but I'm an adult, and I should be able to get along just fine
without your foot on my neck.

> > "The benefit of IPv6 is that you can be the server (again.. like in
> > the 1990s before NAT)"
> 
> This just isn't true. There isn't space in the routing table for
> everyone to have their own block like in the early 1990s.  Cisco talks
> about a new router that can handle 2 million routes. Well, that still
> doesn't give end users their own address block.  It was never size of
> the address space that ARIN/IANA was managing, it was size of the
> routing table.

Hrm ... Is that a failure of IS-IS I hear you mentioning?  Perhaps,
there should be several more layers?  Say 4?  Your 4th layer can be the
backbone, the 3rd layer can be the big pools of population, your 2nd
layer might be the local neighborhood, with the 1st layer talking to
each of the companies, or the like.  You would need layer 1-2, layer 2-3
and layer 3-4 machines as well, at each of the borders, but ... it would
be more robust, now, wouldn't it?

Maybe that's the "killer ap" as in IPv6 will be the killer ap that will
actually get something that doesn't aggregate all the routes all over
the world, but deals better with ARP requests.

I think you just don't want to change the way you are doing things,
which is why you are throwing the wet blanket over our IPv6 movement.
Do you still heat your house with coal?

-dkap

> 	--Dean
> 
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 256 5494
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bblisa mailing list
> bblisa at bblisa.org
> http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa