Subject: RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

From: "Sofia, Rute" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:57:21 +0100

You may or not. You may rely on translation (some form of NAT, yes), or
tunneling - 6to4, for instance. Or you may just consider that most of
the nets are dual-stacked.
 
Rute

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Joe Loiacono
	Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:27 PM
	To: Dwight Jamieson
	Cc: [email-masked]; Pekka Savola; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

	It's my understanding that if you run an IPv6 only network, you
will still need a NAT (e.g., NAT-PT) anyway to talk with v4 hosts. 
	
	Joe

	
	"Dwight Jamieson" <djamies
@nortel.com> 
Sent by: owner-v6ops 

11/23/2005 01:46 PM 

        To:        "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]> 
        cc:        <[email-masked]> 
        Subject:        RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

	Pekka,
	
	Looking a few years down the road, assuming that bulk of the
bleeding is
	over, will operating that network be simpler, easier, cheaper
than
	operating a network with private addressing today?
	
	How painful is introducing new applications behind NAT/ALGs?
What
	percentage of an IT department's budget spent on issues relating
to
	private addressing?

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:33 PM
	To: Jamieson, Dwight [CAR:NP10:EXCH]
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

	On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dwight Jamieson wrote:
	> Is anyone aware of any studies that quantify the differences
between 
	> the operating costs of an IPv4 network using private
addressing vs. an
	
	> IPv6 network using globally unique addresses?
	
	I've not but I'd be interested to see _real_ calculations.
	
	I assume from your wording that you're referring to an IPv6-only

	network.  If so, my suspicion is that the costs can be high as
you 
	need to live on the bleeding edge, i.e., are the one that'll
find the 
	bugs, need to get a lot of consulting to get the network to work
as 
	v6-only, etc.
	
	-- 
	Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet
the
	Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
	Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of
Kings

---

From: Joe Loiacono <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:15:11 -0500

I need to take a closer look at 6to4. Thanks.

>Or you may just consider that most of the nets are dual-stacked.

It may be a long time before even a moderate portion of hosts are 
dual-stacked, in the sense that IPv6 is enabled on the hosts and 
intermediate networks route it and DNS supports it. At least in the US.

Joe

"Sofia, Rute" <rute.sofia
@siemens.com>
11/23/2005 02:57 PM
 
        To:     Joe Loiacono/CIV/CSC@CSC, "Dwight Jamieson" 
<[email-masked]>
        cc:     <[email-masked]>, "Pekka Savola" 
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
        Subject:        RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

You may or not. You may rely on translation (some form of NAT, yes), or 
tunneling - 6to4, for instance. Or you may just consider that most of the 
nets are dual-stacked.
 
Rute

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
Of Joe Loiacono
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:27 PM
To: Dwight Jamieson
Cc: [email-masked]; Pekka Savola; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

It's my understanding that if you run an IPv6 only network, you will still 
need a NAT (e.g., NAT-PT) anyway to talk with v4 hosts. 

Joe

Pekka,

Looking a few years down the road, assuming that bulk of the bleeding is
over, will operating that network be simpler, easier, cheaper than
operating a network with private addressing today?

How painful is introducing new applications behind NAT/ALGs? What
percentage of an IT department's budget spent on issues relating to
private addressing?

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:33 PM
To: Jamieson, Dwight [CAR:NP10:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dwight Jamieson wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any studies that quantify the differences between 
> the operating costs of an IPv4 network using private addressing vs. an

I assume from your wording that you're referring to an IPv6-only 
network.  If so, my suspicion is that the costs can be high as you 
need to live on the bleeding edge, i.e., are the one that'll find the 
bugs, need to get a lot of consulting to get the network to work as 
v6-only, etc.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:21:25 -0800

that would surprise me. My Mac is dual stacked now, and they tell me  
that Windows Leghorn (Longhorn?) will be as well. Comes that way out  
of the box.

The question will be whether IT departments turn it on in the  
network, not whether the hosts will use it if hey do.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:24:04 +0000

> network, not whether the hosts will use it if hey do.

The question isn't only the 'cost', it's also about the benefit.  You 
also need to define 'cost' :)

Our experience of deploying dual-stack as far as open source and vendor 
provided solutions go on an enterprise of over 1,000 hosts is that the
additional 'cost' is low.   

We didn't buy new hardware specifically for IPv6.   We used to run a
parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure on BSD, but went 'properly' dual
stacked when we reprocured our old IPv4 equipment this summer.   No
extra cost per se.   The MRs on the procurement meant the new kit 
supported IPv6 features (unicast amd multicast).   The costs lie more in 
managing the additional protocol, and in ensuring support staff have 
expertise to do their job.

For most platforms, deployment Just Works.   The main gaps we have lie 
in certain vender applications (e.g. Exchange) and in commercial firewall 
product, but from the host and router platform view, the picture is good.
We have no issues running DNS, MXs, web, etc dual-stack.

We have occassional minor operational issues, but these cause very 
little extra supprot effort.

By deploying dual-stack early, we believe our staff gain the expertise in
IPv6 at an early stage.  As an educational site, we expose our CS graduates
to be to the technology.   That is a benefit in our context.

I would imagine the backbone NRENs that have deployed would say likewise,
provided they deployed IPv6 incrementally through new procurements 
rather than going out and buying new line cards specifically to support
IPv6 in hardware.   

You can find example deployment reports at www.6net.org.

In terms of benefits, well, restoring global addressability is important,
and in places where IPv4+NAT was used we can run IPv6 in parallel and
use point to point conferencing and other applications that would have 
been very hard to do between two NATed sites.   Dual stack with IPv4+NAT 
alongside IPv6 will be common, I believe.

Another benefit is that, as an educational site, we see new innovation and 
interest in networking, I believe in part because catering for NATs is no 
longer an issue.   A couple of student developed packages have attracted 
(some) commercial interest.

I think Fred sums it up well when he says that had a business case been
required for the web, it probably wouldn't have happened.

-- 
Tim/::1