Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

> "Dual Stack" is a renumbering plan, if you will. Instead of renumbering an IPv6 network, it renumbers an IPv4 network as an an IPv6 network. RFC 4192 explicitly addresses business continuity on the existing numbering plane (IPv4 in this case) during deployment, and discusses how one tells whether and when one is ready to shift to the new numbering plan (IPv6 in this case), and ultimately how to turn down the old numbering plan.
>
> I find your remark here confusing. Why would one disrupt one's own business for a network reason? Why would one not seek to continue their business operations during the change? Help me out here.
>

Sorry, i have my mobile network blinders on.  In the USA, generally
speaking, large corporations and fixed line providers are not growing
subscribers at a very fast pace.  Mobile data subscribers, on the
other hand, are growing very fast and with M2M they will grow faster.
Not having IPv4 addresses available is a serious business continuity
issue we have in the near term.  Mobile providers in the USA use
N*RFC1918 or BOGONs.  VZW at the Google conference said they have
40*net-10, and AT&T has a similar issues, and these issues have
hampered innovation in the IMS/SIP, e2e, p2p space ... lots of SIP
B2BUA attempting to stitch together overlapping address space.

And, as i have pointed out before in various forums, today's 3G
networks require 2x the signalling and packet core cost for dual stack
users (2x bearers, 2x mobility events, 2x many things ...).  Yes, the
costs change in LTE .... LTE will not be mainstream before IPv4
Exhaust.

>
> Which is to say that you have convinced them that they actually have to turn on IPv6, and good for you. Understand that dual stack has not failed for anyone that has tried it. What has failed is "not turning on IPv6".
>

My free advice does not go nearly as far as codified IETF document.  I
cannot take credit for convince anyone of anything.

Regarding dual-stack has not failed anyone, i direct you to the Yahoo
and Google discussions about DNS white listing.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/slides/dnsop-7.pdf

I also site that dual-stack in 3GPP before release 9 is 2x the cost.
I cannot ask "the business" guys to 2x the packet core network budget
to support 2x the PDP bearers + all that IPv4 NAT.



> Not all are feeling the address pinch yet, and a surprising number of edge networks that I talk with don't expect an address pinch at all. The issue of address availability applies to networks that need a flow of address space to deploy new services or meet new customer needs; businesses that don't require addresses to do that don't have that requirement. So when I say that IPv4 addresses are running out, those businesses yawn. For them, the issue that the coming few years impose is one of accessibility to business partners that do have the issue and as a result will deploy. Call that "denial" if you like; it's a viewpoint that I hear expressed.

Onces again, i site my mobile focus.  I understand people that have
IPv4 addresses and are not experiencing exponential growth at the edge
may not be concerned.

> In view of my argument above, what argument should I give that will convince someone to discontinue their current business operation while they deploy IPv6?
>

IPv4 is not going away. But, IPv6-only host must emerge as the edge
grows (mobile ..., M2M, ...)