netdev - Re: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87y3ft9zwg.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Date:   Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:33:03 +0200
From:   Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Sam Patton <sam@...ancedip.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4

Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> writes:

> I agree on these points, but I'd like to figure what can be done to put
> a bit more pressure on ISPs to *always* provide IPv6.

Most ISPs are in it for the money.  So what you can do is either to make
it more expensive to provide IPv4-only services or more profitable to
provide dual-stack services.  Making IPv4 more expensive is probably
hard.  Even ISPs having to buy address space still figure it is cheaper
than IPv6 with NAT64 or other CGN solutions.

So what you need to do is simply to convince enough of your friends to
pay the price of IPv6.

The fact is that adding IPv6 still has real costs and no real benefit
for an ISP.  There just aren't enough geeks voting with their wallet to
make a difference.  And even if "everything" supports IPv6, there will
always be an extra set of bugs and additional operational problems with
*any* optional feature you enable. IPv6 is no exception. Enthusiasts
within the ISPs is the only reason there is any ISP providing dual-stack
services at all.

> I do have IPv6 at home (a /48, waste of addressing space, I'd be fine
> with less),

Any reason you would want less?  Any reason the ISP should give you
less?

> Maybe setting up a public list of ISPs where users don't have at least
> a /60 by default could help, but I suspect that most of them will
> consider that as long as their competitors are on the list there's no
> emergency.

Exactly.  And the number of users using the list as the primary
parameter for selecting an ISP would be close to 0.  The critical part
is not the list, but making large enough groups of users consider IPv6
an important parameter when selecting ISPs.

Disclaimer: I work for an ISP providing dual-stack services on multiple
access technologies, in a market where no other major ISP does that.  We
have done it for 6 years now, and haven't see any tendency that end
users prefer us over competitors based on IPv6.  Media interest is none.
IPv6 is not even mentioned in articles claiming to compare services.

Bjørn