Subj : RIPE to run out of IPv4 this week?
To   : Andre Grueneberg
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Sun Aug 05 2012 22:05:35

Hello Andre,

On Sunday August 05 2012 13:10, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> Another interesting date may be when the first OS will stop
 MvdV>> support for IPv4. Or the first router vendor. Eventually that
 MvdV>> will happen of course.

 AG> This will take way longer.

I am not so sure. I got into the networking bussines when the company I worked for in 1993 or 1994, decided it needed a LAN. The choice fell on Novell Netware and as I was to first to read the "Red Book" I was assigned to task of network supervisor. It was when NICs had that red sticker with white lettering saying : "YES, it runs with Novell". I ran Novell Personal Netware at home. Novell's network protocol was IPX. When I left the company in 1996, IPX was still running there an at countless other places.

Then came TCP/IP. Even Novell switched to TCP/IP. And where is IPX now? Now not even two decades later, IPX is gone for all intents and purposes.

IPX/SPX and TCP/IP can run "dual stack" on the same physical network. But once you have TCP/IP running on all your nodes, there is no added value in keeping IPX alive.

Something similar could happen with IPv6 and IPv4.

 AG> I'd rather expect some new OS to come out without IPv4.

That may happen.

 AG> For a long time, (minimal) IPv4 support will be needed for several
 AG> transition methods.

why? Once "everyone" has IPv6, what is the added value of dragging IPv4 along?

 AG> So linke OSs were the first to support IPv6, they'll be the last to
 AG> deprecate IPv4 ... it's just software which has already been
 AG> implemented.

 AG>  At least BSDs, Linux and Windows still support hardware which you
 AG> cannot purchase for 15 years or more.

True. But try to get updated drivers for that hardware. It usually stops after 5 years.

 MvdV>> What about their rationale? I think they do have a point.
 MvdV>> Maintaining dual stack is an increased effort and incereases
 MvdV>> the risk of holes that are overlooked. It DOES make sense to
 MvdV>> ditch it as soon as possible.

 AG> No, it's not a major piece of work for most of it. All you need is a
 AG> translation device in your border ... you can easily (re)build your
 AG> internal network IPv6 only ... only the outside facing systems
 AG> (usually some kind of ALG or load-balancer anyway) needs to have IPv4.
 AG> Just see Tore Anderson's presentation at RIPE64 ... I believe he's got
 AG> a good point.
 AG> https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/67-20120417-RIPE64-The_Case_for_
 AG> IPv6_Only _Data_Centres.pdf

I'll have a look at it one of these days. I still fail to see what the added value of maintaining IPv4 is when "everyone" has native IPv6.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)

.