Re: IPv4 Pricing

[Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> That's absolutely not true.  Tier 1 support will have to deal with v6
> issues.  Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6.  Absolutely
> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future).


Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the
implementation issues.

I addressed (separately) the support aspects. Are there cases where v6
specifically causes customer issues? Yes. Are those cases exceedingly rare
these days? Yes. While things happen, the vast majority of user facing
stuff these days follows Happy Eyeballs pretty good, and Just Works when
you have both 4 and 6 available.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:28 PM Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> > Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, but once those
> are done, they're done.
>
> That's absolutely not true.  Tier 1 support will have to deal with v6
> issues.  Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6.  Absolutely
> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future).
>
> > What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, because
> it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things are IPv6
> these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than 9.9.9.9 but
> who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either these
> days?
>
> Little websites named after a forest and an auction website for old junk
> (Amazon and Ebay).
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:23 PM Jared Mauch via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org>
> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints that
> get
> > > > discussed ad nauseam for the last however many years.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if you just don't see it or you're being funny.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's a correct statement.
> > >
> > > "IPv6 doesn't work" : Google's stats show that just shy of 50% of all
> > their
> > > traffic is native V6. Most of the largest CDNs will give you similar
> > > answers. Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, but
> > > once those are done, they're done.
> > >
> > > "My customers don't ask for it." : Customers don't ask for IPv4. They
> > don't
> > > ask for NAT/CGNAT either. But you do those things I'm sure, because as
> > you
> > > said, they just want things to work.
> > >
> > > The answer is really money. You made a business decision not to incur
> the
> > > hardware/software/support costs to implement V6 for your customers.
> > That's
> > > fine, no shame in that. Maybe that will never be a problem for you,
> > maybe
> > > someday it will and it will cost you. Who knows.
> > >
> > > But just be honest and call it what it is, instead of half baked
> > statements
> > > that have been repeated for decades.
> >
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > Talking to friends at companies that do social networking stuff pretty
> > much all their traffic (over 90%) is from mobile devices, and when I look
> > at the big 3 mobile networks in the US they all do IPv6.  Their MVNO’s
> > might vary, but the main networks do IPv6.
> >
> > I find myself having to tether off their networks when I’m on IPv4 only
> > networks to access things like my hypervisors and other assets that are
> > IPv6-only because they have superior networking these days.
> >
> > If you are doing IPv4-only, you are only harming yourself long-term.  The
> > solutions are there for all the things you think you will encounter.  For
> > the most part it’s 96 more bits, no magic.
> >
> > Yes there are a few nuances to be aware of, like proxy-arp saves a lot of
> > people when they do kinky things in IPv4 and proxy-NDP is there, but not
> in
> > the same way on many platforms.  One of the last big hurdles out there
> was
> > IPv6 support for VTEP in FRR in my mind and that gap was recently closed.
> >
> > I also happen to think that Apple got it wrong when they rolled private
> > relay out, they kept the inbound tunnel protocol to outbound proxy
> behavior
> > on the same address family when they could have upgraded it on the
> outbound
> > side to IPv6 which would have closed the gap even more.
> >
> > What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, because
> > it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things are
> IPv6
> > these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than 9.9.9.9 but
> > who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either these
> > days?
> >
> > Do you need a ton of IPv4 space?  Not really, but if you’re a cable
> > company like RCN, yeah you’re not doing any upgrades, but if you are
> > leaving assets on IPv4 just because you are leaving them on IPv4, then at
> > some point you are just wasting money.
> >
> > Send it to me and Tom so we can buy more hockey tickets.
> >
> > - Jared
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/NMBYWMNZ7ROM6WMGFJ7IAYLKPFQG3BUO/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/5M7ANDNUNQRIODBM5B6IGSH3P4XPSBYJ/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/XIUZD6AYUC2DAMFPEAEZFP5XX7RZTYIQ/