Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

[Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>]

On 6/17/14 6:12 PM, "Andrew Fried" <andrew.fried () gmail com> wrote:

> IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
> users have access to IPv6 connectivity.

How many users have access to IPv6 connectivity?

Since this is NANOG, let's talk about North America.

Canada is way behind, just 0.4% deployment.
The U.S. is one of the top countries, in both number of users and number
of top web sites.
Three of the big four U.S. ISPs have double-digit deployment. It's not the
"vast majority" yet, because:
1. Older modems don't support IPv6 (older than, what, 2008?).  As those
churn, counts will rise.
2. Older gateways, especially consumer-owned retail devices, don't support
IPv6.  Churn would help, if new retail gateways supported IPv6.
3. The <10% of people with MacOS use IPv6 half the time (more or less)
that it's available.

I can't find statements right now, but I think those big three are all
> 90% deployed, if you don't count rolling trucks to replace modems.  The
> number of IPv6-capable users is several times higher than the number of
> people actually using IPv6, and I don't know why.

Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have great IPv6 deployments, too, maybe a
couple more years for older handsets to age out.  Still, >50% of VzW LTE
devices use IPv6 now.


> Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own
> systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is
> IPv4 *only*. 

Well there's your problem.


> Yes, Comcast is in the process of rolling out IPv6, but my
> Comcast circuit in Washington DC is IPv4 only.  And I'd suspect that
> everyone with Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, etc are all in the same boat.

I think all of those companies offer IPv6 on their business-only services
(e.g., fiber, ethernet, etc.). For access methods shared with residential
users (i.e., DOCSIS, DSL), it's not rolled out yet. . . RSN.

> Whether the reason for the lack of IPv6 deployment is laziness or an
> intentional omission on the part of large ISPs to protect their income
> from leasing IPv4 addresses

ISPs want to protect their income by continuing to turn up services.

Lee

> Andrew Fried
> andrew.fried () gmail com
>
> On 6/17/14, 5:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra () baylink com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here's what the general public is hearing:
> > >
> > > But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
> > > ~$ dig AAAA arstechnica.com +short
> > > ~$ 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas
> > > > -ru
> > > > nning-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't tech news sites *please* run dual stack while they're spouting
> > > end-of-IPv4 stories?
> >
> > <wishful thinking=on>
> >
> > I would love to see a few more properties do IPv6 by default, such as
> > ARS, Twitter and a few others.  After posting some links and being a log
> > stalker last night the first 3 hits from non-bots were from users on
> > IPv6 enabled networks.
> >
> > It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
> > others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish AAAA
> > records with no adverse public impact.  Making IPv6 available by default
> > for users would be an excellent step.  People like AT&T who control the
> > 'attwifi' ssid could do NAT66 at their sites and provide similar service
> > to the masses.  With chains like Hilton, McDonalds, etc.. all having
> > this available, it would push IPv6 very far almost immediately with no
> > adverse impact compared to users IPv4 experience.
> >
> > - Jared