On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > In message <201202132046.q1DKk1hN020697@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Martin Rex writes > : >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> > >> > On 2012-02-14 05:51, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> > > > From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> > > >> Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, w >> ho >> > > >> do you suggest will? >> > > >> > > > I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right? >> > > >> > > Lots of CPE is actually owned by the customers, not the ISPs. E.g. in our >> > > house, both our cable modem and the router attached to it are ours. >> > >> > Sure, that's very common, but these devices are consumer electronics and >> > will get gradually replaced by IPv6-supporting boxes as time goes on. >> > (That is not hand-waving, the generation of boxes with IPv6 support is >> > starting to appear.) Nobody, I think, is denying that there will be a long >> > period of coexistence as a result. >> > >> > That is a separate question from this draft, which gives ISPs space for >> > *growing* their IPv4 customer base. I think that is what upsets people. >> >> >> The problem of ISP not newly shipping CPE that is not IPv6 capable >> needs to be addressed by regulatory power (legistation), rather than >> by ignorance of the part of the IETF. >> >> >> ISPs *growing* their IPv4 customer base is a natural side effect >> whenever ISPs allow customers to use equipment that they already >> have (and might have been using with a different ISP before). > > You grow your IPv4 customer base by having new customers independent > of whether they are IPv6 customers as well. I don't think there > is a customer that only wants to connect to IPv6 sites. > > Having IPv6 doesn't even cut down on needing to supply IPv4 unless > you have bleeding edge IPv6 equipment. People still need to connect > to IPv4 literals and that will, for a quite a while yet, mean > supplying a dual stack service. > > NAT64 doesn't have a way to inform the CPE on the mapping needed. > It would be simple to do with DHCP but know one had written what > needs to be in the option. > > Similarly 464XLAT doesn't provide a way for the CPE to find the > prefix. Blindly performing 464XLAT has similar issues to blindly > performing 6to4. > 464XLAT may indeed discover the PREF64 using http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-05 Running code says 464XLAT works with IPv4 literals, IPv4 referrals, and IPv4 socket APIs. CB > DS-Lite only became a RFC in the second half of 2011. It will take > some time for IPv6 equipment vendors to add support (hosts and > routers). > >> The vast majority of customers does not know or care about not having IPv6, >> because there is _very_ few equipment that is vitally dependent on IPv6, >> vs. huge amounts of equiment that requires IPv4. If I had a CPE that >> supported IPv6 (mine is from early 2006 an IPv4-only), my concern would >> be how to reliably switch IPv6 off, because of the unsolved security and >> privacy problems that IPv6 brings along. >> >> >> It was the IETFs very own decision to build IPv6 in a fashion that it is >> not transparently backwards compatible with IPv4. If the is anyone to >> blame for the current situation, than it is the IETF, not the consumers >> or the ISPs (except for those folks at ISPs who participated in the >> development of IPv6). >> >> >> -Martin >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf