Subject: RE: US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:47:27 -0700

>     - DoD can't afford to have its own custom solutions that aren't
> commercially available and won't interoperate with commercial or other
> Government systems.

Exactly the COTS mantra is all. I think the decision to move to require IPv6
capability is entirely consistent with this approach.

> (The questions and answers about "IPv5" are sort of funny.)

Quite whatever happened to that?

The think I find mindboggling about all this is that I have yet to see a
concise explanation of how the great transition to IPv6 is going to be
managed and what the incentive for early adopters is going to be.

I don't buy the 'more addresses' argument. If China wants more IPv4
addresses there are plenty they can take without causing widespread
inconvenience. They could decide to simply advertise BGP routes to net 18 or
one of the other large class As grabbed early on by a US university.

I really would not lay bets on the rights of pioneers who got in early and
locked up all the water rights being respected in the case of severe
drought.

If I am right in my belief that IP beat OSI through inertia and luck rather
than technical superiority there is a big problem deploying IPv6. It may
well be that inertia wins again and IPv4 plus NAT is good enough for most
uses.

 		Phill

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:17:56 +0200

On maandag, jun 16, 2003, at 17:47 Europe/Amsterdam, Hallam-Baker, 

> managed and what the incentive for early adopters is going to be.

Nostalgia.  :-)

If you find yourself yearning for a simpler time and place, where 
spamming is unknown, nameservice is still a novelty and people are more 
interested in the network itself than in the content it may carry, IPv6 
is the thing for you.

The trouble with IPv6 adoption is that you don't see a huge, immediate 
gain. But in the long run, the costs of staying with IPv4 are going to 
be higher than the costs of changing to IPv6. We still have enough time 
to do it fairly painlessly.

> one of the other large class As grabbed early on by a US university.

Organizations in China can also simply request the address space from 
APNIC and get them if the request is within reason, just like American 
organizations can request address space from ARIN. APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC 
and RIPE policies regarding IPv4 address assignments are as good as 
identical. Just because some US organizations were able to get large 
blocks of address space in the past doesn't mean all US organizations 
now have all the address space they need.

A few stats: if we squint, 40% of the usable IPv4 address space is 
unallocated, 20% allocated by the RIRs (= reasonably efficient) and 40% 
allocated pre-RIR (= mostly rather inefficient).

> well be that inertia wins again and IPv4 plus NAT is good enough for 

Vendors will have to implement IPv6 because SOME customers require it. 
(Note that supporting IPv4+IPv6 in applications by using the IPv6 
system calls is fairly trivial. The trouble is supporting both the old 
and new system calls side by side in case you need to run on a system 
that doesn't have the IPv6 compatible system calls.) Once all hard- and 
software supports IPv6, the question is no longer "why move to IPv6" 
but rather "why stick with IPv4".

But we'll really see sparks fly once the Linksyses of this world start 
to implement automatic 6to4 based on a dynamic IPv4 address (= 
automatically create, tunnel and give out IPv6 addresses without any 
need for ISP support) so Gnutella and Kazaa users get to run NATless.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:39:03 -0400

> managed and what the incentive for early adopters is going to be.

There isn't going to be a great transition to IPv6 in the sense that 
you seem to mean.  IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist for a long time.  The most
popular IPv4 applications - web and email - will be the last to abandon
IPv4, and they won't do so until IPv6 is ubiquitous.

The incentive for IPv6 adopters is obvious - they'll use IPv6 to do 
things they cannot do with IPv4.  Those things include:  deploying lots of
distinctly addressible pieces of hardware (e.g. things that get monitored or
controlled remotely), alleviating an actual or imposed, global or local,
shortage of IPv4  addresses (this applies both to China and home networks),
talking to IPv6-only devices (that use IPv6 because they cannot reliably get
enough IPv4 addresses), and any apps that cannot reliably operate through NAT.

You might say that there isn't much use of these things today.  But when you
think about it, enabling new kinds of ways to use the Internet infrastructure
is about the only way for ISPs in saturated markets to get new customers.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:05:34 -0400

--On Monday, 16 June, 2003 21:39 -0400 Keith Moore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The think I find mindboggling about all this is that I have
>> yet to see a concise explanation of how the great transition
>> to IPv6 is going to be managed and what the incentive for
>> early adopters is going to be.
>
> There isn't going to be a great transition to IPv6 in the
> sense that  you seem to mean.  IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist for
> a long time.  The most popular IPv4 applications - web and
> email - will be the last to abandon IPv4, and they won't do so
> until IPv6 is ubiquitous.
>
> The incentive for IPv6 adopters is obvious - they'll use IPv6
> to do  things they cannot do with IPv4.  Those things include:
> deploying lots of distinctly addressible pieces of hardware
> (e.g. things that get monitored or controlled remotely),
> alleviating an actual or imposed, global or local, shortage of
> IPv4  addresses (this applies both to China and home networks),
> talking to IPv6-only devices (that use IPv6 because they
> cannot reliably get enough IPv4 addresses), and any apps that
> cannot reliably operate through NAT.
>...

And, if IETF gets its act sufficiently together early enough, 
the capability for someone who doesn't qualify for PI space 
under current IPv4 rules to do multihoming -- perhaps to 
compensate for two incompetent ISPs by hoping they won't be out 
of service at the same time-- at plausible total costs.   My own 
guess is that, as reliable Internet connections become more 
important to people, and if the trend toward lowering skill 
levels at ISPs continues, small enterprise and SOHO multihoming 
may turn out to be one of the driving applications for IPv6. 
If we get our act sufficiently together...

       john

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:27 +0200

On dinsdag, jun 17, 2003, at 05:05 Europe/Amsterdam, John C Klensin 
wrote:

>> to do  things they cannot do with IPv4.

Obviously that would be a very good reason to adopt IPv6, but due to 
the ever evolving hacks in IPv4 there is very little you absolutely, 
positively cannot do in IPv4. Other reasons to adopt IPv6 are that it's 
cool (I mean it - for some people this is all the reason they need), 
because it's The Right Thing To Do, to impress governments that require 
or desire it and finally, because it makes life easier in some 
respects. Personally, I love the way I can connect to a router or host 
over IPv6, completely screw up IPv4 addressing and routing and fix it 
again without fear of locking myself out.

> And, if IETF gets its act sufficiently together early enough, the 
> capability for someone who doesn't qualify for PI space under current 
> IPv4 rules to do multihoming

At some point in the future when IPv6 becomes reasonably common but 
before people start to ditch IPv4, you get to multihome by connecting 
to the net over IPv4 and IPv6 through different networks. This works 
very well and doesn't have any of the scaling issues that current 
multihoming has.

---

From: Ronald van der Pol <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:27:18 +0200

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 21:39:03 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:

> you seem to mean.  IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist for a long time.

Yes, but I am afraid that underestimates the overhead of running
dual stack.

o address administration (dns, number plans, firewall rules, etc)
  has to be done twice
o network management systems have to monitor both protocols
o when there is a problem, you first have to figure out if it
  is v4 or v6 related
o new services (software/hardware) have to be setup and tested for
  both protocols
...

To be clear, I do think dual stack is the best strategy for the
present early stage of _transition_.

	rvdp

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:53:26 +0100

> Yes, but I am afraid that underestimates the overhead of running

Indeed, everything you suggest means that there is an increase in costs
to adopt IPv6, because at this stage you would be very brave to launch
an IPv6-only service, and thus dual-stack is the only way to go.   This 
ramp in expenses is a barrier to IPv6 adoption, when no clear and 
significant additonal revenues can be seen.

However, an operator that does go dual-stack, and is able to become proficient
in managing and operating such an infrastructure, will be well placed to
take advantage of the new IPv6 services as they emerge.  We hear Sony saying
all consumer networked appliances will support IPv6 by 2005.  We hear MS
talk about IPv6 for pervasive collaborative communication (p2p, conferencing
and messaging).  The services and applications are coming.

Question is, who are the early operator adoptors, especially in the home
and enterprise solutions space,  and what are their business plans?

At the moment the academic research networks are taking the lead, because
they do not need a business case to deploy IPv6.  Their philosophy is that
if they deploy IPv6 to some of the best minds in the universities, new
applications and innovation will follow.   Their experience, and
the fact that they iron out the early adoptor bugs with the likes of
Cisco and Juniper, is good news for the second wave commercial adoptors,
which we're just beginning to see the tip of now.

I don't see the DoD adopting IPv6 on a whim; they'll have done their
homework...

Tim

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:05:23 -0400

> Yes, but I am afraid that underestimates the overhead of running

Actually, I can imagine that a lot of enterprise networks will try moving
to single stack, and will almost get there.  I also imagine that tools
will emerge to reduce some of the overhead of dual-stack administration -
e.g. managing address administration and router filters with one set of
rules.  I don't think we'll see that many apps run on both protocols in
practice - I think network admins will say "within our network, apps a, b, c
run on v4, apps x, y, z runs on v6".

> present early stage of _transition_.

I see it as a transition also.  But I think there will be a long period
in which v6 is used mostly for new things, and only when v6 is more 
ubiquitious than v4 will we see some of the core services migrate.

---

From: Ronald van der Pol <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:05:23 +0200

> ubiquitious than v4 will we see some of the core services migrate.

There is a big difference between planning/engineering for a transition
and planning/engineering for a coexistance. There seem to be forces
trying to steer to the latter. Seems like an important question. Why
would we want an internet with two protocols with the same functionality
running in parallel? Should that be the goal?

	rvdp

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:52:03 -0700

Ronald,

RvdP> There is a big difference between planning/engineering for a transition
RvdP> and planning/engineering for a coexistance. There seem to be forces
RvdP> trying to steer to the latter. Seems like an important question. Why
RvdP> would we want an internet with two protocols with the same functionality
RvdP> running in parallel? Should that be the goal?

It is not possible to have a flag-day event for switching to a
replacement service.

Hence, there must be a transition that takes some time.

Remember that this involves thousands of independent administrations and
many tens of millions of systems

Any detailed consideration of the mechanics and time-frame required of
such a transition -- and, yes, I said required; not desirable, not
likely, but required -- you will discover that those details look
exactly like "coexistence".

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:49:10 +0200

On dinsdag, jun 17, 2003, at 17:05 Europe/Amsterdam, Ronald van der Pol 

> running in parallel? Should that be the goal?

I'm sure there are people who are sabotaging v6 in a subtle way by 
encouraging dual stack: after all, if everyone still runs IPv4 in 
addition to IPv6, _they_ can continue to run v4-only. Other than that I 
think the implied assumption is that people will drop v4 at some point 
in the (distant) future.

For any particular application and group of users, and in order to 
switch over seamlessly, it is necessary that all servers become dual 
stack, then clients can switch (without the need to run dual stack) and 
after that the servers can drop IPv4. The problem here is that for 
client-server applications such as the web and email, IPv4 isn't an 
issue because the relative number of servers is tiny and clients can 
use NAT without problems. And for peer-to-peer, _everyone_ is a server 
so _everyone_ has to run dual stack before it's possible to drop IPv4.

Good thing switching to IPv6 is so easy, or it would never happen.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:47:18 -0400

On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 11:05  AM, Ronald van der Pol wrote:

> Why
> running in parallel?

they don't have the same functionality.

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:09:23 -0400

On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 11:05  PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> small enterprise and SOHO multihoming may turn out to be one of the 
> driving applications for IPv6. If we get our act sufficiently 
> together...

Absolutely. This and the peer2peer advantages sound to me like the most 
obvious drivers for v6 adoption.

The only problem with the p2p is the risk that the 
RIAA/MPAA/evilcopyrightholders will brand IPv6 as a bad technology 
that's contributing to infringement ;-)

simon

--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:18:10 -0500

Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email-masked]>
> after that the servers can drop IPv4.

That is one scenario; there are others.

> And for peer-to-peer, _everyone_ is a server so _everyone_ has to
> run dual stack before it's possible to drop IPv4.

Out of curiosity I sniffed my own P2P applications and found that over 50%
of the hosts my client tried to contact weren't available, presumably due to
NATs, firewalls, or other connectivity impediments.  In spite of this
problem, the P2P networks work well enough nobody cares about the problem.

I conclude, therefore, that as long as a sizable minority of P2P users are
dual stack, the majority can safely speak only v4 or only v6.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking