Factors, actions influencing the possibility/timing of IDR for IPv6-basedrouting domains?
tvest at pch.net
Sat May 16 04:12:23 CEST 2009
Thanks for the reactions.
I'm going to attempt to rephrase slightly to fit them into the
framework that I attempted to describe in my original request.
Please let me know if I've missed or misinterpreted anything.
Some factors/actions that you cite:
1. RIRs will attempt to recover some IPv4 for redistribution.
2. Some operators will undertake internal "rationalization" of their
own IPv4 assets.
These are interesting, but not directly relevant to my question about
prospects for native v6 IDR (except perhaps as potential confounding/
Others that you mention:
3. Some IPv4-based operators will sell IPv4, and some aspiring new
entrants will buy IPv4.
4. Mobile access providers will increasingly use IPv6 to add new
customers and services.
(3) is a perfect match with my original list, and (4) is a special
case of another factor that I cited initially.
You also suggest that:
5. Content providers will increasingly "connect to the IPv6 network."
This one is ambiguous. Are you suggesting that online content
providers will build out their own wide area native-IPv6 distribution
platforms to reach native IPv6 wireless/mobile access customers? Are
you anticipating other sources of demand for native IPv6-based content
-- i.e., other than recently added wireless access customers? Are you
anticipating other distribution mechanisms (e.g., other than DIY) for
getting native IPv6-based content to those new native IPv6 sources of
demand? Presumably not all online content providers will have the
scale or means to build their own national/international
6. Somebody (IPv4-based operators? IPv6-based new entrants?) will
"give way free service."
I don't know what this means actually. I'm assuming that you mean that
someone will (or should) provide some kind of deeply (perhaps 100%)
discounted service, the results of which would be increased demand for
native IPv6-based IDR -- but I don't know who or what you have in mind
specifically. Would this be a recommendation that straddles one of the
other points above (e.g., for native IPv6-based mobile access/access
providers, or IPv6-based content hosting businesses?), or something
Sorry if this re-parsing seems excessively literal; I'm trying to
enumerate specific factors that should be included in a formal model
for simulating the evolving probability of establishing/sustaining
native IPv6-based inter-domain routing services.
On May 15, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Here is how I envision this thing happening. You can adjust the
> dates as you see fit.
> Sometime in 2013 IANA and rest of the RIR's run out of "virgin
> IPv4". The
> general news media starts making a big deal out of it. Many ISP's who
> had no clue will get clueful. ARIN will embark on "low-hanging-fruit"
> reclamation projects to attempt to pull back abandoned IPv4. This
> satisfy the smaller requestors. The larger requestors (eg. Comcast)
> embark on "internal IPv4 reclamation" projects. The Internet will
> generally run on IPv4. Cell phone providers will begin heavily
> IPv6 along with IPv6-IPv4 proxy systems
> Between the years of 2013 and 2015 the RIR's will gradually exhaust
> "low-hanging-fruit" IPv4 reclamation projects and a paid, transfer
> in IPv4 will arise. By 2017 this transfer market will be in full
> and it will be regarded as customary for "aspiring IDR participants"
> purchase IPv4 blocks. Large orgs will be in full swing with
> internal IPv4
> reclamation projects, both for their own needs and to sell to
> Content providers who run websites will be heavily pressured to
> connect to
> the IPv6 network.
> By 2020 we will see the end of the transfer market as price increases
> push block prices to the point that they will never be able to
> a return on investment. By now, all orgs will be deploying IPv6 as
> SOP for
> "native" IP connectivity, along
> with RFC1918 addresses for IPv4 connectivity, or extra-cost public
> Small orgs will likely be doing the same as well as heavy
> and use of web and other proxies to get IPv6 assigned address
> customers to
> IPv4 providers on the Internet. Large orgs will have forced all major
> content providers to offer content via IPv6 in addition to IPv4
> From 2020 to 2025 will be the IPv4 end game. The paid transfer market
> will have collapsed and no large requestors will be asking for IPv4
> the RIR's. We will have the appearance of IPv6-only content
> and this trend will accelerate. New IDR participants likely will be
> only requesting nominal amounts of IPv4 to assist in accessing the
> remaining content providers who haven't switched.
> By 2025 everyone offering a website on the Internet will be IPv6. An
> increasing number of Internet customers will decline even the free
> RFC1918 IPv4 addressing. Gaps and issues with route propagation of
> IPv4 BGP table will become increasingly regular.
> By 2030 IPv4 will have been reduced to a handful of sites still
> it mainly because they have not bothered to clean up their internal
> A majority of transit AS's will be actively filtering IPv4
> IPv4 will essentially be dead.
> So, in answer to your question of:
> "...what individual actions
> -- either undertaken directly by the aspiring IDR
> participant, or by the operators of other, established
> routing domains -- could directly or indirectly impact the
> probability, timing, and extent of this becoming generally possible?
> I would say:
> GIVE AWAY SERVICE.
> Sign up more customers. Get people on the Internet who are not
> currently on the Internet. What ultimately pushes IPv6 is
> a shortage of IPv4, and the only thing that creates this is
> consumption of IPv4.
> This is likely why the United States is going to have the worst
> time to switch to IPv6. We have likely reached saturation for
> the Internet market, and thus everyone in the country already has
> an IPv4 address. What is going to drive the US to IPv6 is the
> rest of the world offering content on IPv6 and US customers wanting
> to get at it. Unfortunately, the US is the largest supplier of
> content in the world, as George Carlin used to say:
> "America's most profitable business is still the manufacture,
> packaging, distribution and marketing of bullshit"
> ---George Carlin: "You Are All Diseased (1999)"
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+tedm=ipinc.net at lists.cluenet.de
>> [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+tedm=ipinc.net at lists.cluenet.de] On
>> Behalf Of Tom Vest
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:15 AM
>> To: IPv6 Ops list
>> Subject: Factors,actions influencing the possibility/timing
>> of IDR for IPv6-basedrouting domains?
>> Hi all,
>> Would be very grateful for assistance from list members....
>> apologies for any duplication...
>> I'm trying to compile a list of environmental factors or
>> actions that might affect the probability and timing of
>> direct participation in interdomain routing becoming
>> practical, specifically for routing domains that start out
>> with some IPv6 but without even one publicly routable IPv4 address.
>> The question I'd like help with is: what individual actions
>> -- either undertaken directly by the aspiring IDR
>> participant, or by the operators of other, established
>> routing domains -- could directly or indirectly impact the
>> probability, timing, and extent of this becoming generally possible?
>> Please note (if it wasn't already obvious) that I'm *not*
>> talking about the possibility of becoming a pure/direct
>> customer of another routing service provider, nor am I
>> asking/making presumptions about IDR-related activities that
>> are not commonplace, much less "guaranteed" for routing
>> service providers in general (ubiquitous settlement-free
>> peering, etc.). The basic idea is that there is a range of
>> "normal" or "conventional" activities that operators of
>> routing domains may choose to participate in today (e.g.,
>> exchanging traffic, indirectly or directly, potentially with
>> most if all other routing domains; participating as a third
>> party in traffic exchange between other routing domains --
>> aka providing transit; pursuing, accepting, and/or rejecting
>> direct and indirect traffic exchange relationships;
>> influencing traffic flows across those interconnections,
>> etc.), none of which would be possible today for an operator
>> of a pure IPv6-based (or any post-IPv4 runout) routing
>> domain. The question is: what's going to change that?
>> My current provisional list of things that might
>> incrementally change that includes:
>> 1. New entrant(s) obtain an independently routable quantity
>> of IPv4 from someone/somewhere, which can be used to mediate
>> traffic exchange between internal IPv6-based resources and
>> external IPv4-based network elements.
>> 2. Existing, IPv4-based routing domains offer native
>> IPv6-based IP transit that is physically accessible by the
>> aspiring new entrant(s).
>> 3. Existing, Pv4-based routing service providers begin to
>> accommodate incremental growth of existing and new customers
>> using IPv6 *in a way that makes those new elements
>> transparently reachable via native IPv6- based IDR.* 4.
>> Existing, Pv4-based routing domains make some or all of their
>> current, public-facing resources reachable via native IPv6-based IDR.
>> What else should be on the list? Additional comments,
>> questions, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
>> Thanks in advance,
More information about the ipv6-ops