[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

"Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications"....



Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> > If the entire deployment path automatically requires 84 layers of NAT
> sludge, that's what gets tested, cause it "works" for "everybody".
> 
> Hence my questions regarding the actual momentum behind end-to-end
> native IPv6 deployment.  Inertia is generally only overcome when there's a
> clear positive economic benefit to doing so - 'savings', assuming there
> actually are any, are a) almost always exaggerated and b) generally not a
> powerful enough incentive to alter the status quo.

That is why the preference is biased toward IPv6 when it is available. If
you expect the end users to make a conscious choice it will never happen. If
the underlying OS components make that choice for them, you end up with a
transition.

Open the page that Tim Chown sent out :  http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/ 
Select World-scale data  :  then open IPv6 Prefix & User graphs.  Look at
the correlation between IPv6-alive prefixes & user %. 

Those users never made a conscious choice, the OS did it as soon as it had a
path to the target. As more prefixes light up, the 'unconscious pent up
demand' will make that User curve even steeper. The primary bottleneck at
this point is and will be CPE. Fixing that will likely require a financial
incentive to get consumers to 'upgrade' their working box. Normal lifecycle
replacements will take a long time, requiring larger investments in cgn's,
so as soon as the new cpe is available in sufficient quantity at a
reasonable price point, any MBA can go make the case you are looking for
about why it is cheaper to do a cpe subsidy than it is to invest in a
never-ending cgn saga (if they can't figure it out have someone hire an MBA
from the mobile providers who transition handsets off the old network all
the time). 

Getting the cpe vendors to ship in quantity requires the ISP engineering
organizations to say in unison "we are deploying IPv6 and will only
recommend products that pass testing". As long as there are voices calling
for 444nat in the flavor-of-the-week, cpe vendors will not focus on the long
term goal, because they will see the interim steps as opportunity to extract
more cash for short-life products. So will infrastructure vendors for that
matter. Indecision and scatter-shot approaches only increase the number of
things that need to be bought, deployed, and operated. That overall
additional cost is a complete waste to the operator / end user, and clear
profit for the vendors. 

You claim to be looking for the economic incentive, but are looking with
such a short time horizon that all you see are the 'waste' products vendors
are pushing to make a quick sale, knowing that you will eventually come back
for yet-another-hack to delay transition, and prop up your expertise in a
legacy technology. The same thing happened with the SNA faithful 15 years
ago, and history shows what happened there.

Tony