RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>]

Dobbins, Roland wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> > Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators
who
> want to sustain their business.
>
> I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part.

Operators are all free to choose their own planning horizons. History is
littered with the remnants of those with limited vision.

> > Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users.
>
> I think it may be possible to make money with compelling IPv6-only
> content/services/applications.

If you believe that is true you should do it and prove the point.
Unfortunately most people that actually deploy and support applications
can't make the math come out right when the access providers don't provide a
path to 99% of the paying customers, then do just about everything they can
to hobble bypass approaches.

> > Apple and msft os' s now make a clear judgement on that. So, you need to
> update your perspective.
>
> I'm not very interested in their judgement.  So, I'm quite happy with my
> perspective, thanks.

The overall system includes the perspective of app developers, not just BGP
knob twisters, so the point of having a widespread api base is critical to
making progress. 

> > Does not matter. And it will not happen.
>
> Proof by repeated assertion doesn't sway me.

It will happen, just not anytime soon. As the access networks get deployed,
traffic will shift, so eventually the question about the expense of
maintaining an ever more complex IPv4 version of the app to deal with
multi-layer nat to support a dwindling user base will have to be answered. 

> > The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market
> budget do you have? How hot is your cgn running?  Like ALGs much ?
> Security and attribute much ?
>
> These are important, yes.
>
> > Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network
> operator and app issue (cough cough ... skype).
>
> It's my contention that IPv6 won't be widely deployed unless/until end-
> customers call up their ISPs demanding this 'IPv6 or whatever' thing they
> need to accomplish some goal they have.

And it is the contention of app developers that they can't make money on an
app that that can't reach 99% of the intended user base.  The entire point
of tunnels is to break this absurd deadlock where access won't deploy
without apps and apps won't deploy without access. Instead of getting on
with it, there is an ongoing entrenchment and search for the utopian
one-size-fits-all zero-cost transition plan. All this does is show how
widespread the denial is, where people are refusing to let go of an entire
career's worth of 'expertise' to keep up with the technology changes.
Fortunately some have moved on, and are deploying despite the extra effort
required in the short term. 

Once there are a substantial number of IPv6 access networks, the traffic
volume will shift rapidly and people will start asking why the core is even
aware of IPv4. At that point maintaining IPv4 will become the end user's
problem, and they will have to find legacy tunnel providers if they want to
keep that going. IPv4 won't die, it will just become an edge problem because
the only reason to keep it running will be devices with embedded IPv4-only
stacks which won't be replaced for 10 years. 

Tony