[VoiceOps] IPV6

[Paul Timmins]

Daryl G. Jurbala wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
>
>> To step back, I agree with the original poster.  I am absolutely 
>> dumbfounded that the voice industry, and VoIP industry in particular, 
>> hasn't latched on to IPv6 much much more than they have.  Its a 
>> relatively closed ecosystem of devices and systems that could (at 
>> least in theory) be IPv6 enabled without having to enable a huge 
>> extra amount of infrastructure to support it (even transport networks 
>> need not be fully IPv6 enabled, although its certainly beneficial to 
>> be fully native).
>>
>> Losing NAT from the equation is zOMG hugely beneficial, or would be.  
>> I truly am dumbfounded at the resistance to IPv6 in the voice 
>> industry, one of the industries that would benefit the most from IPv6 
>> adoption in my estimation.
>
>
> OK, let's go over the reasons from an ISTP standpoint:
> - L3 routing and firewalling upgrades required.  Wait, your 
> 6509/7206VXR support IPv6?  Yeah....it does.  Most of it in CPU.  You 
> will be CRUSHED if you try to do what you are likely doing now as far 
> as PPS and ACLs in IPv6 without an upgrade to the latest gear.
My 7206VXR shows that my ipv6 is being cef switched.... Of course the 
entire platform is CPU based so who knows.
> - ISP support - how many of you actually have upstreams that fully 
> support IPv6?  Do you really want to count on tunneling for your transit?
I do have native ipv6 on one, and I'm tunneled 2 hops away on the other, 
still within the purview of the carrier's network.
> - ARIN support - Really, guys?  You complain about running out of 
> space, yet you want to bill the crap out of me to use "the solution"?  
> Give me a /32 PI for every /22 allocation I already have, for free, 
> and you might see some more people spending more time demanding that 
> their upstreams support IPv6, justifying IPv6 capable gear in upgrade 
> cycles, etc, etc (i.e.: reaching a carrier-class layer 3 tipping point 
> for IPv6)
Read the NPRM carefully, you already can get a /32 PI free of charge if 
you have a /21 or larger (might even apply for a /22, can't remember). 
You pay the larger of the two ARIN fees, not the combination.

> - SBC support: Why would they bother when the L3 isn't there in most 
> cases?  Not a single one of my carriers supports IPv6, so why would I 
> even ask for it from my SBC?
>
> I'm sure there's more, but that's off the top of my head.  Bottom 
> line: we don't even have critical mass in basic L3 connectivity.  
> Could pushing it from the application side help?  Probably.  Is there 
> any current well justified business case?  No.  Not considering the 
> realities of business short-sightedness and budgetary constraints.
Not demanding the support is a very chicken/egg situation. I demand 
support even for things that won't have v6 capability and have no demand 
so the features are there when I need them. (I do this with plenty of 
features I don't currently use but would like to in the future). Waiting 
until you have an urgent need before starting the process of requesting 
the feature is something I wholeheartedly encourage my competitors to do.

-Paul