On 10/5/19 12:06 PM, Dave Taht wrote:

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> writes:

...

IPv6 deployment in your network means cutting your NAT expense in half. More, as more sites deploy. There's no fungable or measureable "NAT expense". NAT generally saves money. Look at the container market for one recent example.

If you have a dedicated box or service card for NAT, you have a specific NAT expense. If you can buy a smaller box for half the cost, you've saved a specific amount of money. I know of mobile carriers who NATted every Internet connection in IPv4, and have halved their capital expense on NAT.

...

IPv6 deployment in your network might mean you can sell some of your IPv4 addresses, a clever way I've seen to fund the transition. That I agree with. But I see no sign anyone is actually doing that. It's saner to horde at the moment.

I've had inquiries along these lines, and written proposals.

...

IPv6 deployment on your web site means improving your page load time, and therefore SEO, and therefore revenue. At NANOG I showed quotes that IPv6 increases revenue by 0.2%-7%.[1] BS. Happy eyeballs costs time.

Here's my assessment: https://www.retevia.net/why-is-ipv6-faster/

...

The cost to deploy IPv6 is not high: it's mostly labor, and people who BS. It needs to be implemented first in a deployable state.

"Deployable"? It's been deployed by the millions. Everyone who's done it says it was mostly labor.

...

complain that there's no training are ignoring the hundreds of tutorials, books, articles, videos, and web sites available to them for free, not to mention the thousands of friendly engineers.

To everyone who sees a high cost, I ask whether you know the value of NAT reduction and web site speed (and avoiding buying addresses, or I note that port exaustion is a real thing on ipv4 networks today that more should measure. In one recent set of "coffee shop tests", I had an over 30% initial syn failure rate. I don't know why (we were also testing ecn) at the moment, but that was a shocking number.

ipv4 dns with udp was already using up a lot of udp port space. with quic eating up a lot of udp more, I'm not happy.

JUST deploying dns over IPv6 as I did

Interesting!

...

selling addresses), in $LOCAL_CURRENCY, so you can evaluate every obstacle you might encounter. For instance, "Our web conferencing doesn't support IPv6, and it'll cost us $9,000 a year to change. But IPv6 will save us $30,000." The decision is easy. That last number is pure BS. It's not a single cost. It's that last dangling set of apps that can't be converted to ipv6 that's the infinite cost.

I'm not sure what you're calling "BS." Obviously $30,000 was a made-up number for the example. I don't know what "dangling set of apps" you mean that can't be converted, especially in the context of "How much would it cost to add IPv6 support?"

...

In another message on this thread I noted that small ISPs are squeezed between CPE and IPv4 purchases. They can't get CPE that supports IPv6, or that supports MAP or 464xlat, because they don't buy enough, so they have to pay to buy addresses. They can't get cheap CPE that has those features. ALL that code runs great in openwrt.

And ipv4 addresses are needed until ipv6 hits 100% deployment.

Fewer IPv4 addresses are needed in the context of MAP or 464xlat.

...

That's easily solved by collective action: 100 small ISPs can get the features they want (at a better discount) than one acting alone. Great. Is there an ISP association trying to do that already?

Not that I know of. If there's interest, I'll support, maybe organize. Lee