The major driver will be customer demand (read: $$$$), or the network
: Funnily enough, I was reading this only yesterday: : : http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/ipv6wv.mspx : : Have a look a the "Business Drivers" section especially. It's just funny numbers: "A recent report from NIST3 estimates that IPv6 could provide a US$10 billion per year benefit to the U.S. and the Japanese government estimates that IPv6 could generate a value of US$1.55 trillion." They give a reference to footnote 3. I searched footnote 3 (www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/ipv6wv.mspx) for the word trillion and only get one match: "The 128-bit address header in IPv6, in contrast, provides approximately 3.4x1038 addresses, enough to assign trillions of addresses to each person now on earth or even to every square inch of the earth’s surface." So, to segway into pet peeve of mine, this is the reason to allocate very large (for example: allocation of IPv4 /8 blocks to everyone that asked in the not so distant past) blocks of v6 space. Heck, no one will EVER need that much IP space! <8-) Show me the money, not funny numbers... scott Oops, I forgot: beer :-)
Interesting thread. InternetNZ recently received its IPv6 allocation (based on our sliver of IPv4 space) and I note we have around 4 billion ipv6 numbers allocated - the equivalent of the entire Internets IPv4 space. Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering end to end IPv6 in or from NZ. Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc. It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a question of when. To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or are we content to be followers in the transition? Is IPv6, as in development of the roadmap to deployment in NZ a useful subject for the NOG conference in January, or who do InternetNZ have to provide beers to, to get the subject on the agenda? Keith Davidson
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 19:59 +1300, Keith Davidson wrote:
Interesting thread. InternetNZ recently received its IPv6 allocation (based on our sliver of IPv4 space) and I note we have around 4 billion ipv6 numbers allocated - the equivalent of the entire Internets IPv4 space.
One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO.
Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering end to end IPv6 in or from NZ.
Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc.
It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a question of when.
I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-)
To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or are we content to be followers in the transition?
That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie
Jamie makes a good point. APNIC assigns address space on the proviso that half of it is used within a year, and the entirety within another year (IIRC). Given that they assign a minimum /21, and NZ alone has a thousand poky ISPs run by kids, probably vast chunks of space are being given out to organizations with a few dozen customers. APNIC does assign smaller blocks, but only under quite strict conditions, probably which cannot be met by most small operators. Just my $0.02. Erin Salmon Managing Director Unleash Technology Solutions Phone: +64 3 365 1273 Mobile: +64 275 877 913 (new) -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Baddeley [mailto:jamie.baddeley(a)vpc.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2006 9:10 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 19:59 +1300, Keith Davidson wrote:
Interesting thread. InternetNZ recently received its IPv6 allocation (based on our sliver of IPv4 space) and I note we have around 4 billion ipv6 numbers allocated - the equivalent of the entire Internets IPv4 space.
One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO.
Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider
offering
end to end IPv6 in or from NZ.
Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc.
It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a question of when.
I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-)
To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders,
or
are we content to be followers in the transition?
That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.16/552 - Release Date: 26/11/2006 11:30 a.m. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.16/552 - Release Date: 26/11/2006 11:30 a.m.
The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing. Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6. The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the problem worse. -----Original Message----- One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO.
Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider
offering
end to end IPv6 in or from NZ.
Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc.
It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a question of when.
I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-)
To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be
leaders, or
are we content to be followers in the transition?
That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Philip D'Ath wrote:
The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing.
Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6.
This is true, and many of them do. I was mildly amused to see my Nokia N73 supporting v4 and v6 out of box, but I've never seen it get a v6 address from anything. Although... how many of those devices really need to be publically addressed?
The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the problem worse.
Unlikely. The majority of triple play solutions have the STB as a private device, or work fine behind NAPT. You don't need to give it a public address.
Jamie Baddeley asked:
One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO.
At last years Aussie ISOC IPv6 Summit, Paul Wilson, CEO of APNIC stated 10 years, possibly more if unused addresses reclaimed, Geoff Huston had an interesting conjecture as mentioned elsewhere in this thread etc. John Crain's suggestion that the Internet today is primarily IPv4 with pockets of IPv6, and is moving towards primarily IPv6 with pockets of IPv4 seems logical, but he fails to qualify that with a timeline. But perhaps the question that could instead be asked is "will something force migration to IPv6?" The US Military have long been suggesting that they will at some point in the next few years require all its suppliers to be on IPv6 end to end. This may have impact on many NZ organisations who supply various US military branches with agricultural, horticultural and viticultural goods.
I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-)
True enough, but some may believe that our own networks will grow over time, and that the easiest time to ever do a renumbering is now....
To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or are we content to be followers in the transition?
That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators.
Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that.
Now that is an ambitious plan. Maybe Cisco could put up a prize of free beer for the entire nation for the first country to fully migrate? Keith Davidson
Leaders please. -----Original Message----- To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or are we content to be followers in the transition? Is IPv6, as in development of the roadmap to deployment in NZ a useful subject for the NOG conference in January, or who do InternetNZ have to provide beers to, to get the subject on the agenda? Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson wrote:
To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or are we content to be followers in the transition? Is IPv6, as in development of the roadmap to deployment in NZ a useful subject for the NOG conference in January, or who do InternetNZ have to provide beers to, to get the subject on the agenda?
IPv6 was on the agenda this year. Dean (and David?) spoke about their work with v6. I can't recall other talks this year, but they probably happened. I think there is great enthusiasm within the NOG, as we're geeks who like to play with cool toys. However, I don't see a business case for real world deployment in the near future. It would probably be beneficial for organisations to play with v6 in their labs, to test new equipments' v6 support, and to learn about it for when such a deployment /is/ feasible. Perhaps InternetNZ want to consider a bulk order of "Intro to v6" books like they did for Multicast in '04, and subsidise some lab kit, or provide v6 training and access to a v6 lab somewhere. No doubt someone can build v6 in to their network and that can be their differentiating factor, but I don't see that having much appeal to non-geeks until a killer-app comes along that only supports v6 as a transport. Maybe some kind of video delivery service, or p2p app, who knows. Get your thinkin' caps on. Maybe have a word to Google about building six-tube. It doesn't necessarily have to be a technical reason why v6 is required, but it has to make sense from a business POV that the restriction is built in to the protocol/software. Perhaps the recently-web-2.0-ified Wellington TNC website can have v6-only content. Anyway, keep providing updated numbers, and from time to time having these discussions to remind people, and I'm sure it'll happen when it needs to. -- Nathan Ward
Nathan Ward wrote:
Keith Davidson wrote:
To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or are we content to be followers in the transition? Is IPv6, as in development of the roadmap to deployment in NZ a useful subject for the NOG conference in January, or who do InternetNZ have to provide beers to, to get the subject on the agenda?
IPv6 was on the agenda this year. Dean (and David?) spoke about their work with v6. I can't recall other talks this year, but they probably happened.
I believe the outcome of Dean's comments were, "Nobody really uses it, there's no real demand for it, why bother?" or to that affect. I'm sure he'll jump in and speak for himself though ;).... if he hasn't had his silence bought by beer. When soliciting people to speak on v6, Donald found it extremely hard to find anyone with a real, useful, practical story to talk about. Marketing, yes. "We looked at it once", yes. But that was it. aj.
From: Alastair Johnson Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 12:09 a.m. To: Nathan Ward Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion [...]
I believe the outcome of Dean's comments were, "Nobody really uses it, there's no real demand for it, why bother?" or to that affect. I'm sure he'll jump in and speak for himself though ;).... if he hasn't had his silence bought by beer.
When soliciting people to speak on v6, Donald found it extremely hard to find anyone with a real, useful, practical story to talk about. Marketing, yes. "We looked at it once", yes. But that was it.
That wasn't quite it. There was also "We're a university Computer Science department, and we're running dual stacks." The thing I couldn't find was anyone using IPv6 for any reason other than for the sake of running IPv6. (Which I consider a perfectly good reason, if you're a Computer Science department.) If there's anyone doing that who might be willing to speak at NZNOG 2007 in February ... And as was pointed out at this year's conference, you can run IPv6 across a carrier network which doesn't itself do anything to support IPv6. One way of doing that is with a layer two service. - Donald Neal Donald Neal |"I don't have a computer. I'm Support Engineer |like Wimbledon's equivalent of NGN Operations |the Amish." - Andy Hamilton Integration & Services Division +------------------------------- Alcatel NZ Ltd - Telecom's network operations manager This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Keith Davidson wrote:
Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering end to end IPv6 in or from NZ.
The question which I recall being raised at the last conference is still the same one I have today - if people want IPv6 transit, are they prepared to pay for it? Deplying IPv6 in a carrier network isn't as simple as you might think. The actual addressing itself is the simplest part. Licensing costs, productisation, training, DNS, address management, these are all non trivial things. And the provider is going to want to recoup the costs of as many of these as possible, at least until IPv6 becomes Business As Usual. So, who wants to pay? --David
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:57:29AM +1300, David Robb wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Keith Davidson wrote:
Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering end to end IPv6 in or from NZ.
The question which I recall being raised at the last conference is still the same one I have today - if people want IPv6 transit, are they prepared to pay for it?
Deplying IPv6 in a carrier network isn't as simple as you might think. The actual addressing itself is the simplest part.
Licensing costs, productisation, training, DNS, address management, these are all non trivial things. And the provider is going to want to recoup the costs of as many of these as possible, at least until IPv6 becomes Business As Usual.
So, who wants to pay?
(dragging out my soap box and scatter-shooting) me... i want to keep paying my usual and customary fees for Internet access. If you (smarty-pants ISP) have a cocked up business model that failed to account for upgrade/replacement costs, then you deserve to "bleed-out". IPv6 is/should be transparent to the enduser. Any other approach will result in serious questions about your ability to handle customer relations. wrt native IPv6 transit providers, they do exist and some even have been mentioned in this thread. For giggles, how many folks are taking advantage of the IPv6 enabled exchanges to peer w/ other native IPv6 offering ISPS? --bill
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, bmanning(a)karoshi.com wrote:
IPv6 is/should be transparent to the enduser. Any other approach will result in serious questions about your ability to handle customer relations.
I don't disagree. However, as Steve pointed out in a different reply :
PS: there are some ISPs in this country that are in a position to route v6 natively across their networks, they just lack resource to turn this into a real product, maybe helping these people could be a first step as well - i.e, want v6 transit, hut these people down, call them up and tell them you will switch if they offer you native v6 - soon enough they will allocate resource to make it a reality as they will be able to see there is support. Until this point, forget it. They have more important things to do that WILL bring them in revenue.
I probably misrepresented the argument in my initial post. ISPs want revenue. If you're prepared to pay for IPv6 as a standalone product, great. If you're prepared to move your business to them because they offer IPv6 but don't charge more for it, then that's also ok. But this second case does rely on the ISP being able to provide the other services you'd want to move to them. I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is for big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll take my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks. Waving sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the ISPs might. --David
David Robb wrote:
I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is for big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll take my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks. Waving sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the ISPs might.
And at the end of the day, they're going to buy services from someone, regardless of whether they actually get v6 or not. So you may or may not get the business, and if you don't, you haven't really lost anything anyway. David is right. It will always be driven by customer demand (dollars), not by "the end is nigh". I even said that last night. :(. aj. -- ipv4 and atm is still the only way to go. just accept it.
All I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for a carrier anymore. =) Both David and AJ are correct. I think this was the brunt of the pres that Joe and I gave last year. If you're not willing to make a bigger deal about it, then it's not going to happen. Now looking at this mailing list, this is a topic which has sparked a lot of interest and you've all taken the time to write and have your say. But seriously, how many of you have had this conversation with your upstream account managers in either of the following ways. "I'll pay more for IPv6" or "We're moving all our business to someone who offers IPv6" Because if you havn't then it's not surprising that the IPv6 Internet in NZ is in exactly the same state today as it was when Joe and I finished talking last Feb. Come on people - we TOLD you what you had to do. Have you really been ignoring us and playing WoW all this time? =) Dean Alastair Johnson wrote:
David Robb wrote:
I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is for big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll take my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks. Waving sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the ISPs might.
And at the end of the day, they're going to buy services from someone, regardless of whether they actually get v6 or not. So you may or may not get the business, and if you don't, you haven't really lost anything anyway.
David is right. It will always be driven by customer demand (dollars), not by "the end is nigh". I even said that last night. :(.
aj.
-- ipv4 and atm is still the only way to go. just accept it.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
About six months ago I tried to by IPv6 connectivity. I could find no one in NZ who was prepared to sell it to me - at any price. I ended up having to go offshore to get the connectivity I wanted. -----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:nznog(a)deanpemberton.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 10:26 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Gotta make a post seeing as it's IPv6 =) was IPv4 Exhaustion All I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for a carrier anymore. =) Both David and AJ are correct. I think this was the brunt of the pres that Joe and I gave last year. If you're not willing to make a bigger deal about it, then it's not going to happen. Now looking at this mailing list, this is a topic which has sparked a lot of interest and you've all taken the time to write and have your say. But seriously, how many of you have had this conversation with your upstream account managers in either of the following ways. "I'll pay more for IPv6" or "We're moving all our business to someone who offers IPv6" Because if you havn't then it's not surprising that the IPv6 Internet in NZ is in exactly the same state today as it was when Joe and I finished talking last Feb. Come on people - we TOLD you what you had to do. Have you really been ignoring us and playing WoW all this time? =) Dean Alastair Johnson wrote:
David Robb wrote:
I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is for big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll take my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and
soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks. Waving sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the ISPs might.
And at the end of the day, they're going to buy services from someone,
regardless of whether they actually get v6 or not. So you may or may not get the business, and if you don't, you haven't really lost anything anyway.
David is right. It will always be driven by customer demand (dollars), not by "the end is nigh". I even said that last night. :(.
aj.
-- ipv4 and atm is still the only way to go. just accept it.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
At ANY price, you say? I'll gladly sell it to you. Please contact me off-list for pricing. On 29/11/2006, at 10:29 PM, Philip D'Ath wrote:
About six months ago I tried to by IPv6 connectivity. I could find no one in NZ who was prepared to sell it to me - at any price.
I ended up having to go offshore to get the connectivity I wanted.
-----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:nznog(a)deanpemberton.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 10:26 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Gotta make a post seeing as it's IPv6 =) was IPv4 Exhaustion
All I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for a carrier anymore. =)
Both David and AJ are correct. I think this was the brunt of the pres that Joe and I gave last year.
If you're not willing to make a bigger deal about it, then it's not going to happen.
Now looking at this mailing list, this is a topic which has sparked a lot of interest and you've all taken the time to write and have your say.
But seriously, how many of you have had this conversation with your upstream account managers in either of the following ways.
"I'll pay more for IPv6" or "We're moving all our business to someone who offers IPv6"
Because if you havn't then it's not surprising that the IPv6 Internet in
NZ is in exactly the same state today as it was when Joe and I finished talking last Feb.
Come on people - we TOLD you what you had to do. Have you really been ignoring us and playing WoW all this time? =)
Dean
Alastair Johnson wrote:
David Robb wrote:
I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is for big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll take my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and
soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks. Waving sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the ISPs might.
And at the end of the day, they're going to buy services from someone,
regardless of whether they actually get v6 or not. So you may or may not get the business, and if you don't, you haven't really lost anything anyway.
David is right. It will always be driven by customer demand (dollars), not by "the end is nigh". I even said that last night. :(.
aj.
-- ipv4 and atm is still the only way to go. just accept it.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
!DSPAM:22,456d530523306738668996!
Yep same here. If you're paying ANY price I'll even through in all the consultancy you need to get it all going. Consider it a done deal. I'll build you the best damn IPv6 connectivity you've ever seen. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume we're talking about different definitions of 'ANY' Seriously though. All it's gonna take is someone who is serious about doing this. I'm happy to put my hand up and say that there will be a price that you could contact my employer and have me come to your place of employment and make you fully IPv6 connected. [1] It can happen today. Just say the word. Dean [1] this is not a paid advertisment. NZNOG does not support paid or unpaid advertisments. This has been to illustrate a point. Nathan Ward wrote:
At ANY price, you say?
I'll gladly sell it to you. Please contact me off-list for pricing.
On 29/11/2006, at 10:29 PM, Philip D'Ath wrote:
About six months ago I tried to by IPv6 connectivity. I could find no one in NZ who was prepared to sell it to me - at any price.
I ended up having to go offshore to get the connectivity I wanted.
-----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:nznog(a)deanpemberton.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 10:26 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Gotta make a post seeing as it's IPv6 =) was IPv4 Exhaustion
All I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for a carrier anymore. =)
Both David and AJ are correct. I think this was the brunt of the pres that Joe and I gave last year.
If you're not willing to make a bigger deal about it, then it's not going to happen.
Now looking at this mailing list, this is a topic which has sparked a lot of interest and you've all taken the time to write and have your say.
But seriously, how many of you have had this conversation with your upstream account managers in either of the following ways.
"I'll pay more for IPv6" or "We're moving all our business to someone who offers IPv6"
Because if you havn't then it's not surprising that the IPv6 Internet in
NZ is in exactly the same state today as it was when Joe and I finished talking last Feb.
Come on people - we TOLD you what you had to do. Have you really been ignoring us and playing WoW all this time? =)
Dean
Alastair Johnson wrote:
David Robb wrote:
I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is
for
big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll
take
my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and
soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks.
Waving
sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the
ISPs
might.
And at the end of the day, they're going to buy services from someone,
regardless of whether they actually get v6 or not. So you may or may not get the business, and if you don't, you haven't really lost
anything
anyway.
David is right. It will always be driven by customer demand
(dollars),
not by "the end is nigh". I even said that last night. :(.
aj.
-- ipv4 and atm is still the only way to go. just accept it.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
!DSPAM:22,456d530523306738668996!
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
I've replied off list to this one to other people, but I'll reply on list to stop the rest of the messages. As I've said, I took my requirement off shore. My initial needs have been met. -----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:nznog(a)deanpemberton.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 11:08 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Gotta make a post seeing as it's IPv6 =) wasIPv4 Exhaustion Yep same here. If you're paying ANY price I'll even through in all the consultancy you need to get it all going. Consider it a done deal. I'll build you the best damn IPv6 connectivity you've ever seen. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume we're talking about different definitions of 'ANY' Seriously though. All it's gonna take is someone who is serious about doing this. I'm happy to put my hand up and say that there will be a price that you could contact my employer and have me come to your place of employment and make you fully IPv6 connected. [1] It can happen today. Just say the word. Dean [1] this is not a paid advertisment. NZNOG does not support paid or unpaid advertisments. This has been to illustrate a point. Nathan Ward wrote:
At ANY price, you say?
I'll gladly sell it to you. Please contact me off-list for pricing.
On 29/11/2006, at 10:29 PM, Philip D'Ath wrote:
About six months ago I tried to by IPv6 connectivity. I could find no one in NZ who was prepared to sell it to me - at any price.
I ended up having to go offshore to get the connectivity I wanted.
-----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:nznog(a)deanpemberton.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 10:26 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Gotta make a post seeing as it's IPv6 =) was IPv4 Exhaustion
All I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for a carrier anymore. =)
Both David and AJ are correct. I think this was the brunt of the pres that Joe and I gave last year.
If you're not willing to make a bigger deal about it, then it's not going to happen.
Now looking at this mailing list, this is a topic which has sparked a lot of interest and you've all taken the time to write and have your say.
But seriously, how many of you have had this conversation with your upstream account managers in either of the following ways.
"I'll pay more for IPv6" or "We're moving all our business to someone who offers IPv6"
Because if you havn't then it's not surprising that the IPv6 Internet in
NZ is in exactly the same state today as it was when Joe and I finished talking last Feb.
Come on people - we TOLD you what you had to do. Have you really been ignoring us and playing WoW all this time? =)
Dean
Alastair Johnson wrote:
David Robb wrote:
I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is
for
big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll
take
my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and
soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks.
Waving
sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the
ISPs
might.
And at the end of the day, they're going to buy services from someone,
regardless of whether they actually get v6 or not. So you may or may not get the business, and if you don't, you haven't really lost
anything
anyway.
David is right. It will always be driven by customer demand
(dollars),
not by "the end is nigh". I even said that last night. :(.
aj.
-- ipv4 and atm is still the only way to go. just accept it.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
!DSPAM:22,456d530523306738668996!
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Which was actually the best thing you could have done. Now - do the following for me. Get an invoice for your IPv6 service. Mail it to the account manager of any NZ carrier who you have a relationship with. Set it out like this. ---------%<-----cut here-------%<---------- Dear <insert name here> I was just wondering if <insert company name here> would like an additional $<insert monthly amount for IPv6 here> per month from my account. Recently I inquired about getting an IPv6 feed from you but was informed that you did not offer this service. As a consequence of this, I have secured a feed from elsewhere. If at any stage <insert company name here> is in a position to offer me an IPv6 feed under similar conditions, I would be more than happy to seriously consider your offer. In the mean time please let <insert company name here> product management know that they are losing real revenue by not offering this product. Yours sincerely <insert your name here> enc: IPv6_Invoice.doc ---------%<-----cut here-------%<---------- Send that every month..... I'm sure you can sort out the cron job. If you don't want to bother doing that, then there is no real point in lamenting that NZ doesn't have a native IPv6 carrier, because people are obviously happy with going overseas for it. Dean
I've replied off list to this one to other people, but I'll reply on list to stop the rest of the messages.
As I've said, I took my requirement off shore. My initial needs have been met.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Come on people - we TOLD you what you had to do. Have you really been ignoring us and playing WoW all this time? =)
Myep, that's a fairly accuate picture. On the other hand, despite not having IPv6 working anywhere outside the engineering lab, I do now have several level 60 WoW characters. JSR
I am doing something about it! seriously~ [1] Tonight i'll be beginning my ipv6.pr0n.co.nz project. Given that you guys are the target (read: only conceivable) audience, you can all help make this a reality - please email me pictures of your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter(/mum - if you're one of the 14yr olds reading the list) to me for consideration. I will also have a "funny-pr0nz" section, so you're welcome to photoshop HILARIOUS speech-bubbles and photo captions to your "whoopsy, she wasnt ready" snaps - provided you dont cover the "good bits" Access will be free/unlimited via IPv6, or $49.45/month via IPv4 Dont thank me, I already know i'm awesomes! Jeremy [1] ..maybe
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Come on people - we TOLD you what you had to do. Have you really been ignoring us and playing WoW all this time? =)
Myep, that's a fairly accuate picture.
On the other hand, despite not having IPv6 working anywhere outside the engineering lab, I do now have several level 60 WoW characters.
JSR
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
John S Russell wrote:
Myep, that's a fairly accuate picture.
On the other hand, despite not having IPv6 working anywhere outside the engineering lab, I do now have several level 60 WoW characters.
Heh thought so =) As I've said a few times now, I even mentioned it during my pres at NZNOG last year. If Blizzard were to release the WoW expansion pack as IPv6 only...... THEN there would not only be a reason to change. But I'm picking that it would only take about a hour and a half before Telcos started to write business cases. Dean
I find it slightly ironic that those screaming the loudest for IPv6 seem to have the most poorly researched assertions regarding the death of IPv4. (I am of course ignoring the obvious stupidity of things like IPv8/9/16) Who are the loudest proponents of IPv6? I tend to agree with the evaluation presented in Todd Underwood's blog: vendors, consultants, and the protocol designers themselves... (http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/03/bashing_ipv6_at_telecomnext.shtml) If IPv6 is the answer, what was the question again? Perhaps it is time to accept that IPv6 is the wrong answer (or we need to start asking better questions), take the lessons learned from its failure, and start again. The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught many lessons about what will and will not work (and more importantly what will be accepted or not). There are many fundamental problems with the protocol that no amount of marketecture or hand-waving will fix; the least of which is a lack of end-users calling for a v6 address for their toaster/television/mechanical tie rack. These issue must be addressed, either in IPv6 (not likely), or in IPng-NG :) </soapbox> /joshua ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" (it says ~20-million customers + kit == 100-million) -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams -
On 29/11/2006 10:42 a.m., joshua sahala wrote:
There are many fundamental problems with the protocol that no amount of marketecture or hand-waving will fix; the least of which is a lack of end-users calling for a v6 address for their toaster/television/mechanical tie rack.
Backwards compatibility would have to be #1 - that's how Playstation do it... -- Netspace Services Limited http://www.netspace.net.nz Phone +64 4 917 8098 Mobile +64 21 246 2266 Level One, 220 Thorndon Quay, Thorndon PO Box 12-082, Thorndon, Wellington 6004, New Zealand
joshua sahala wrote:
There are many fundamental problems with the protocol that no amount of marketecture or hand-waving will fix; the least of which is a lack of end-users calling for a v6 address for their toaster/television/mechanical tie rack.
Funny, I don't seem to recall them asking for v4 space either.. infact, I don't even see them asking for ip connectivity, generally they just ask for "the intertubes !" "I just want my MSN to work" "I just need to get my latest car tracks downloaded from Sony on my PS3" "I just need to get my pr0n" Most of the arguments I've seen here are simply stupid (sorry to use a harsh word, it is so unlike me) - The ones I liked the best were along the lines of "who cares if/when v4 space is running out, we should do something about it NOW so we are prepared." Who here has thought anything about the year 2038 bug ? (and if you have.. how much further in the future is that ? are you concerned about what's going to happen 10 or less years down the road with v4 ?) v4 space _will_ run out - its a fact. when ? who knows, who cares ? how do we fix it ? well, hey, v6 would work, maybe it wont, maybe the solution will be economical (oh ! so you want ANOTHER /24 ? well, that will be $1893725863475634 for this months thanks !) personally, I'm happy running both and have done for the past two or so years, if v6 dies, well - so be it, but if it DOES take off, then I'm ready for it - are you ? PS: there are some ISPs in this country that are in a position to route v6 natively across their networks, they just lack resource to turn this into a real product, maybe helping these people could be a first step as well - i.e, want v6 transit, hut these people down, call them up and tell them you will switch if they offer you native v6 - soon enough they will allocate resource to make it a reality as they will be able to see there is support. Until this point, forget it. They have more important things to do that WILL bring them in revenue. -- Steve.
These issue must be addressed, either in IPv6 (not likely), or in IPng-NG :) </soapbox>
/joshua
ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" (it says ~20-million customers + kit == 100-million)
Perhaps it is time to accept that IPv6 is the wrong answer (or we need to start asking better questions), take the lessons learned from its failure, and start again. The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught many lessons about what will and will not work (and more importantly what will be accepted or not).
There are many fundamental problems with the protocol that no amount of marketecture or hand-waving will fix; the least of which is a lack of end-users calling for a v6 address for their toaster/television/mechanical tie rack.
These issue must be addressed, either in IPv6 (not likely), or in IPng-NG :)
So, what would your requirements be for IPng-NG? What "Questions" do you want answered? What problems does v4 have that need fixing? What problems does v6 have that you think should be avoided? This group appears to be one of the best places to ask, what do /you/ want from a IPng-NG?
participants (18)
-
Alastair Johnson -
bmanning＠karoshi.com -
David Robb -
Dean Pemberton -
Dean S. Pemberton
-
Donald Neal -
Erin Salmon - Unleash -
Gerard Creamer -
Jamie Baddeley -
Jeremy Brake -
John S Russell -
joshua sahala -
Keith Davidson -
Nathan Ward -
Perry Lorier -
Philip D'Ath -
Scott Weeks -
Steve Phillips