Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IPv6 and the Business-Case Skeptics

Posted by kdawson on from the there-is-none-get-over-it dept.

Julie188 writes "Experts keep screaming that the IPv4 sky is falling. Three such experts were recently asked point-blank to state an irrefutable business case for moving to IPv6 now, and their answer was more plausible than the old refrain (the lack of addresses and a yet-to-be-seen killer IPv6 app). They said that there isn't a business case. No company that is satisfied with all of its Internet services will need to move, even in the next few years. They also pointed out that Microsoft is a unique position in the industry both causing and hindering IPv6 adoption — causing through its IPv6 support in its OSes, and hindering by not extending IPv6 support into very many of its apps."

10 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. You want a business case? by dmayle · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • It's an opportunity for press, "We're the first baz widget company to offer our services over IPv6".
    • Do something kitschy and you've got potential for viral advertising, "Got IPv6? Come see our new IPv6 only thingamabob, look it's funny, share the link with your friends".
    • You can garner the attention of early adopters, "You're at the forefront of technology, and so are we. That's why you should do business with Foobar Widgets."

    There are plenty of business cases for IPv6, you just have to ask business experts, not technology experts...

    1. Re:You want a business case? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because cutting yourself out of 99%+ of the market by going IPv6 only is a smart business decision. Face it, if you want an online service you're on IPv4 and the service won't really be any different on IPv6. Between HTTPS, VPN and SSL noone is excited about IPSec because it's already solved if less elegantly, nor has the "online home" happened. Neither my fridge, dishwasher, washing machine or toaster is online even in the local LAN so I got no use for my own /64. IPv6 is about as sexy as computers in a new shade of beige.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:You want a business case? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're one of the people who has enough static IP addresses to serve your needs, you're better off with IPv4, because that will make sure you're among the few who do. Increasing supply doesn't serve those who already have enough, which would be those interviewed.

      If you like things the way they are, where the restricted number of static IPs makes it impossible for the great unwashed to have a voice and the web is coming to resemble a television set more each day, well, you're not going to be supportive of IPv6. Plenty for everyone means no leverage, which means no profit. Which means IPv6 isn't going to get business support from the IT sector any time soon.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:You want a business case? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to host a server, call a hosting company. Your home internet connection is not sold for hosting servers.

      That's a BS argument. What if I want to stream my music collection, that's stored on my media server, to work? Or access MythWeb so I can alter my recording schedule during the day? Or simply SSH to my home machine so I can retrieve something I was working on? None of these cases are served by using a hosting company, yet all qualify as "[hosting] a server".

    4. Re:You want a business case? by Cato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real business case is very simple:

      * IPv4 addresses will run out in around 2010 to 2011

      * Businesses that need new addresses (mostly ISPs and telecom operators) will need to go IPv6 just to keep operating in longer term (even if there are short term workarounds, they don't work forever - this is why Comcast already has IPv6 live in its core network)

      * Planning ahead will be important to avoid an interruption in business (can't get new IPv4 addreses so can't activate customers)

      * Around 2009/2010, the stock market will start to assess public companies as to whether they have an IPv6 transition plan, and the press will start to hype "IPv4 is running out - another Y2K is on the way" - companies that don't have an IPv6 transition plan will find their ratings and stock prices fall

      If you want to continue expanding as a telco/ISP, and to have a healthy stock price (after the current dip), you will need a serious plan to move to IPv6. It's that simple.

      This article was generally quite pro IPv6, the summary was atrociously slanted against v6. But that's Slashdot for you...

  2. There is no business case *in the US* by johannesg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Countries like China and India, that have lots of people that might one day want to connect, but not a lot of existing infrastructure yet, and certainly not a lot of IP4 addresses, will have a far better motivation than countries that have an abundance of unused addresses.

    The killer app will come, alright - just not from the US.

  3. IPv6 will happen when China demands it by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IPv6 will happen when China demands it. China's growing need for IP address space will drive the issue. China needs at least a billion IP addresses. Especially since the Chinese government would like a system where each device has a permanent IP address.

  4. Microsoft and IPv6 by BhaKi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, Microsoft is the last company to add IPv6 support to its OSs. By the time of arrival of WinXP, most other OSs including Linux, Solaris and BSDs had it atleast for 2 years. And WinXP offered it as an optional protocol that had to be installed manually. Vista is the first version of windows to offer IPv6 in a default install.

    --
    The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
  5. Re:Not exactly true by Cajal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NATing between the internal LAN and the internet they can get up to ~250,000 entries (provided their hardware can support that), allowing each of their 2,000 users to be using, on average, 125 internet applications (or open connections) at once.

    What's going to be more expensive: A massive NAT box or an IPv6-enabled router (as many already are)?

    What's going to be more expensive: Adding NAT buster support into many apps, or using IPv6 (many apps are already IPv6-aware)?

    At the APNIC 26 conference last month, NTT presented some ballpack numbers for how many people can be comfortably put behind NAT. They're not encouraging. Basically, the common "Web 2.0"-type apps open a lot of background connections, which chews through your ephemeral port space quickly, limiting the number of people that can be NATted. Google echoed those claims loud and clear: "AJAX applications break behind excessive NAT."

    Also, consider that by 2012 we'll have run out of public IPv4 addresses. But only 25% of Earth's population will be online. Do you propose to put another 3.5 billion people behind NAT? I'm pretty skeptical that NAT can handle that load.

    While NAT will likely be needed in the short term to deal with IPv4 address exhaution, I'm highly skeptical of its long-term scalability.

  6. Stages of Grief by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Network architects and admins with clue are currently at the "Depression" stage (4th stage).

    Why Slashdot feels that putting up a commentary authored by someone who's still in the first stage ("Denial") is useful to anyone is beyond me.

    IPv4 exhaustion is coming. CIDR got us from the mid-90s until now. But it's coming now. Please stop denying, being angry, trying to bargain it away. Hopefully we'll all move past depression into acceptance (as vendors and infrastructure gets ready) before it hits. But I know a lot of smart people who would prefer to retire in the next 2 years instead of be there when it hits.

    They probably won't, but would like to...