/27 the new /24

[matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)]

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> In message <A35FA880-B612-4458-BD22-323BEF66A5BC at matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman w
> rites:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Instead, the followup question is needed=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s g
>> =
>> reat, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn=E2=80=99t have a=
>> nd can=E2=80=99t get an IPv4 address?=E2=80=9D
>>> =20
>>> Owen
>>> =20
>> 
>> At the present time, a web site that doesn't have and can't get an IPv4 addr=
>> ess isn't "on the Internet".
> 
> It's on the Internet.  ISP's that fail to supply IPv6 at this point
> in time are committing fraud if they claim to supply Internet
> connection.

Good luck prosecuting them for that.

Along with all the internal IT departments that are failing to deliver v6 to wifi and desktops.

> 
>> That may change in the future, but right now this is the web site's fault, n=
>> ot your ISP's.
> 
> No, it isn't the site's fault.  The internet ran out of IPv4 addresses
> years ago.  Not everyone can get a public adddress.  

Right. Now it is only people who can afford about $8 one time. (The going rate for IPv4 on the transfer market at modest block sizes)

> There are
> millions of customers without a public IPv4 address that can host
> a site because they are behind a CGN which is only needed because
> of the short sightedness of lots of ISPs failing to deliver IPv6
> to their customers.

I think you meant cannot.

Most consumer ISPs also prevent this as a matter of policy. Good luck getting those policies changed.

> 
>> Wishing that the IPv6 transition had gone differently does not change
>> reality.
> 
> I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly.  I see someone
> pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to
> delivering IPv6.

Sure, they're too late. Which is why, until there's more progress, a website not reachable over IPv4 is fairly useless if the goal is to serve "most of the users on the Internet"

> 
> *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver IPv6 by the time
> the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses.  That would have been
> just-in-time engineering.  It's not like they didn't have over a
> decade to plan to do it,  It's not like there wern't reasonable
> accurate forcecasts for when that would happen.

Yeah, totally agree. Didn't happen. Still hasn't happened. Won't happen tomorrow.

> 
> It was not hard to see what would happen if you didn't deliver IPv6
> before the first RIR ran out.
> 
> No instead most of then stuck their heads in the sand and said "we
> have enough IPv4 addresses" without looking at whom they need to
> connect with.

Last I checked, things are still working out just fine for all of them. Despite the obvious concerns about the future.

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)