IPv6 when?

[#1]

Wants to go on the ipv6 trial

[#2]

I'd be willing to go on the IPv6 trial if you still need people. I've been following the IPv6 saga for a long time from the point of view of an innovation process, though I'm not ultra-technical. I've got a Thomson 585v8, so I could install the firmware flash.
Graham

[#3]

FAO anyone wanting to go on the trial, numbers will be limited for this and we may need to start a new thread to gauge interest, failing that I might see if we can push this via http://trials.plus.net. So please hold fire for now and we'll come back to you nearer the time.

[#4]

@Adam - That's what JoJo's been doing since Page 7 

[#5]

slap on the wrist for me then, I'd not come to read the whole thread yet TBH and knew this needed to be done....

[#6]

Asia runs out of IPv4 addresses much sooner than expected.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/it-8217s-official-asia-8217s-just-run-out-of-ipv4-addresses/948
Expect, very soon now, a three tier internet,
Those with IPv6 and IPv4 able to access the whole of the internet
Those with IPv4 and only able to access the IPv4 internet
Those with IPv6 and only able to access the IPv6 internet*
* although I understand there are some methods to allow access to the IPv4 network

[#7]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

Expect, very soon now, a three tier internet, Those with IPv6 and IPv4 able to access the whole of the internet Those with IPv4 and only able to access the IPv4 internet Those with IPv6 and only able to access the IPv6 internet* * although I understand there are some methods to allow access to the IPv4 network

I think that needs re-writing as :
Those with IPv6 and IPv4 able to access the whole of the internet
Those with IPv4 and only able to access the IPv4 internet
Those with IPv6 and only able to access the IPv4 internet from behind a NAT gateway provided by their carrier*
* They can expect problems with a variety of protocols - such as SIP (VoIP), BitTorrent clients, anything that uses inbound connections (so no running mail or web servers at home), and a whole pile more.
Also expect to find IPv4 allocation becomes tiered (more so than now). In decreasing cost :
Those with a fixed, public IPv4 address
Those with a dynamic, public IPv4 address
Those with an RFC1918 address behind the ISPs NAT gateway (already standard for mobile (GPRS/3G) users)
Already most ISPs offer a choice between the first two, with most charging an excessive amount for a fixed address for no other reason than "they can get away with it" and the exorbitant price is subsidising the headline price they advertise. Plusnet don't charge for a fixed address

[#8]

Could you add me to the trial too, please? Our router and most other devices are V6 compatible, with a mix of Windows and Linux clients

[#9]

I would also be interested in any ipv6 trial. I am currently on the FTTP trial and the netgear router I have is ipv6 enabled.

[#10]

Quote from: dave

Not yet but maybe later. The Thomson 585v8s we're shipping now are IPv6 capable with a firmware flash. I think that the Netgear WNR1000 we're shipping for FTTC either has already or shortly will have an IPv6 firmware and any other routers we ship from now on will be IPv6 capable (at least with a firmware update). So we will start to be able to test once we have the IPv6 firmwares for the routers we've already shipped. At some point everyone is probably going to have to use both IPv4 and IPv6 as there will be areas of the Internet that are only available on one or the other. Imagine a new ISP or hosting company coming to the market in the UK once RIPE run out of IPv4 addresses, they'll be allocated IPv6 only so to be able to see their sites or communicate with their customers you'd need IPv6 too but another ISP may not have even started doing IPv6 so will only be available on IPv4. There may not be any hurry for them if they have plenty of IPv4 addresses going spare especially given that there's costs involved. I can see IPv4 being around for a long time to come but it may be that for those that have IPv6 they only use a carrier grade NAT IPv4 service, time will tell.

Dave,
Just to clarify, the policies currently in place wont allow us to totally run out of IPv4 AFAIK.
From http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/faq
"According to RIPE Document ripe-509, section 5.6, each Local Internet Registry (LIR) will receive only one /22 (1024 IPv4 addresses) upon application for IPv4 resources. In order to obtain this /22 allocation, the LIR must already have an IPv6 allocation.
We expect RIPE NCC to be making such allocations for the indefinite future.
Please see the IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region."
Obviously, a /22 is pretty useless, but it will allow new members to run CGN type infrastructure for their customers.
RIPE 62, next week in Amsterdam will have a lot of talks/info on IPv6, plus its a good excuse to party at Queens Day this saturday 🙂 see http://ripe62.ripe.net
Ben
* Not any sort of official comment

[#11]

Quote from: benoh

Obviously, a /22 is pretty useless, but it will allow new members to run CGN type infrastructure for their customers.

CGN? I Googled it but I'm pretty sure you're not referring to the College of Graduate Nurses... (or are you?!)
Mathew

[#12]

I'd guess at Carrier Grade Network.
But I'm probably wrong  
[edit]I knew I would be, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Grade_NAT on for size[/edit]

[#13]

Quote from: avatastic

[edit]I knew I would be, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Grade_NAT on for size[/edit]

Ah, of course. It was so obvious it never even occurred to me despite it only being discussed earlier! Thanks!
Back to the point being made (I think), a CGN 'solution' to the issue of dwindling IPv4 resources is considered by many as not really a solution at all. Just swapping one set of problems for another! Rather that kicking the arris out of what's left, I think I'd rather we did just run out in order to give the ultimate impetus to migrate!
Mathew

[#14]

Quote from: MJN

Ah, of course. It was so obvious it never even occurred to me despite it only being discussed earlier! Thanks! Back to the point being made (I think), a CGN 'solution' to the issue of dwindling IPv4 resources is considered by many as not really a solution at all. Just swapping one set of problems for another! Rather that kicking the arris out of what's left, I think I'd rather we did just run out in order to give the ultimate impetus to migrate! Mathew

Of course, NAT is evil!
However, this transition is going to take some time.  I believe the policy to reserve a /22 is more for things like making sure they can dual stack name servers, mail servers etc.
Dual stack is the way to go, but if you dont have v4 addresses for *every* customer, you either cant grow or need to introduce NAT somewhere.
Ben

[#15]

Sure, I agree. I think I must've misinterpreted what you were saying! 
Mathew