Re: IPv4 Pricing

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

> I did.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1 customer
> support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and managing their
> subnets.  Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled on the
> router.


Not picking on you specifically here, but it's generally funny to hear
"none of my users ask for V6" , then "my support will be run over with V6
setup questions". :)




On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 3:09 PM Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>
wrote:

> > Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the
> implementation issues.
>
> I did.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1 customer
> support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and managing their
> subnets.  Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled on the
> router.
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:48 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
>
> > 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/MPRBEYIGIMAB7GPRQ6ZD5TNU5QBG4AQ7/