Archive for May, 2013
Last week I made a presentation to the San Diego LOPSA group. About IPv6, of all things 🙂
IPv6 support has entered the mainstream from all the “usual vendors”, which has reduced adoption risk over the past few years. It has been deployed by some of the busiest and largest sites and they’re continuing to move ahead. IPv6 is ready for prime time.
At this point, anyone with a some dedication and a little tech savvy can dual-stack a home network, and companies should definitely be exploring and learning IPv6, if they aren’t already deploying. (IT) People are becoming ready for IPv6.
Based on my experiences and discussions at the North American IPv6 Summit, I’m even more convinced that dual-stack is the right transition strategy, and this presentation reflects that.
(EDIT: Thanks to @TeamARIN for tweeting this. If you’re interested in IPv6, you might want to check out the rest of my IPv6 posts.)
(It looks like Google docs doesn’t exactly import Powerpoint properly…)
I missed the morning talks as they conflicted with my advanced IPv6 class, but I did catch the afternoon sessions.
It seemed like there were three camps at INET Denver: people already embracing the future by deploying IPv6, people trying to avoid IPv6 as long as possible, and people who planned to make money from both of the other two camps.
Let’s talk about the “wait as long as possible” camp.
For almost two decades the argument from the “business side” of IT was there was “no compelling business reason to move to IPv6“. (That article is is from 2009 by the way, but I haven’t seen a new argument since then.) It’s true, there’s been no “killer app” that everyone demanded that was only available via IPv6. It’s also true that doing nothing was a legitimate strategy for quite a while. After all, what good is it to have a telephone (IPv6), if no one else has one? Until recently, moving to IPv6 truly didn’t have a compelling business argument. After all, doing nothing costs nothing. Mostly.
The Internet has changed. And we’re (almost) out of IPv4 addresses, so you have to do something. Sadly, too many ISPs have tried to do what they think is the cheapest and most minimal amount of work they could get away with. That’s Carrier Grade NAT (CGN).
The economics have changed, too. Lee Howard of Time Warner Cable had a very interesting talk where he deconstructed, and then destroyed the myth that CGN is cheaper to deploy than dual-stack. Since he’s the Director of Network Technology for Time Warner Cable, I guess he knows more about the ISP business than most people.
Mr Howard’s talk shows that CGN will cost you in (unhappy) customers, support costs, and only delay the inevitable, when you’ll have to move to dual-stack anyway. His talk effectively demonstrates that the infrastructure and operational costs of a CGN network are more expensive than dual-stack.
There’s your business case. Deploy IPv6 and save money. Done. Now get to work.
It’s been a busy few months, what with travel (visiting 5 studios in three cities in 4 days), some new projects and some extra excitement around the office.
I’m also looking at moving this blog, or finding a way to load balance or proxy in front of it, to provide IPv6 access. More than half the content here is about IPv6, and it’s not accessible over IPv6. Come one WordPress.com, let’s get that fixed, please?
Otherwise it may be AWS ELB, or even a proxy running on my home (dual-stacked) server, which would be an interesting project, but way too kludgy.
In the next few days, I’ll be posting info and impressions from the North American IPv6 Summit and recent experience as we roll out IPv6 in the office.
E3 is coming, and that will be keeping us busy, too. It’s a great time to be in the industry. This will be my fourth game console launch, and the one I’m most excited about.
Or maybe I’ll just start to write about the craftbrewing scene in San Diego?