It's sort of surprising that providers haven't used v6 as a marketing
tool. There is some new stupid Xfinity ad about Wifi going kaboom or
something that makes about zero sense, but honestly most eyeball
networks are differentiating themselves mostly on nothing at all (cf:
"kaboom"). v6 actually does give a direct path from host to server
without the network complexity which is good for latency, etc. So they
could actually visualize it as a network with a NAT Goridan Knot in the
middle that their new-fangled upgrade -- ipv6 -- chops in half to
unleash the true speed potential. Or something.
The point is that bits are pretty much commodities, so prettier looking
packaging is probably what a lot of this reduces to. Heck, you could
even have partner programs that tout the content providers who work with
your new tech (::snort:: 30 year old "new"). For the ones who've already
upgraded, it's free publicity as well.
Mike, forgive my lack of caffeine
On 6/19/25 11:58 PM, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
That’s why IPv6-only with IPv4aaS makes sense instead of dual-stack.
You don’t need to run dual-stack in most parts of the network, but the
customers have dual-stack in their LANs. You don’t care anymore about if
customers or destinations are IPv4, IPv6 or dual-stack. All become transparent
to you.
Moreover, if your customers are mainly residential, you will find that
typically 85% of your traffic is going to CDNs or content providers that are
already IPv6-enabled, so your NAT64 traffic will be much lower than the actual
CGN traffic, and will go even lower with the time.
Waiting for 100% of the content providers to be IPv6 ready will not work,
always someone will be still lost in the IPv4, and for sure you don’t want to
get helpdesk calls complaining about that if you switch to IPv6-only (without
IPv4aaS).
The issue is to have the right CPEs or CPE firmware that supports IPv6-only
with IPv4aaS. Some vendors still need much more customers pressure to offer
that. An alternative is of course open source, which is available for both the
CPE (OpenWRT) and the NAT64 (Jool). We have done that for several customers and
zero issues.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 20 jun 2025, a las 7:46, Forrest Christian (List Account) via NANOG
<[email protected]> escribió:
Which is why I asked the original question.
My intent is not to never move to IPv6, it's just that we're in no rush to
do so. Note that we've had IPv6 on-network with our own address space
since 2008. It just hasn't expanded much beyond our core due to various
challenges and a lack of financial incentive to do so.
If nearly 100% of the content providers were reachable via IPv6 today. I'd
likely have already been switched. If that number were still in the
almost-zero category, I wouldn't even consider migrating to IPv6, other
than in the core and niche cases that we've been running since we started
experimenting with it 18 years ago.
At some point, the incremental cost of adding the necessary hardware to
support NAT for IPv6-only customers to access the legacy IPv4 internet will
be low enough that it will make sense for us to deploy it. At that point,
I won't see any reason to continue deploying IPv4 for new customers, and it
will become our legacy protocol. We're certainly getting closer to this
threshold. I don't know what that threshold is, but we are getting closer
and closer to it. I do know it's going to be well before the internet
shuts off IPv4.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 8:45 PM Adam Fathauer <[email protected]> wrote:
What happens when a customer tries to connect to a ipv6 only resource?
I routinely hear the argument that “we have plenty of v4 space left”, but
what about the folks at the other end?
If you wait until then, you’ll either start loosing customers or have to
scramble to accommodate v6 then. Much better to do it slowly on your terms.
Adam
Adam
------ Original Message ------
From "Forrest Christian (List Account) via NANOG" <[email protected]>
To "North American Network Operators Group" <[email protected]>
Cc "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <[email protected]>
Date 6/19/2025 6:05:12 PM
Subject Re: IPv6 native percentage (end user perspective)
Just to provide some perspective from my viewpoint:
I can run dual-stack. But I don't want to, at least for a specific
customer. I want a particular customer to be IPv4 or IPv6, with an
eventual transition to 100% IPv6.
I don't want to restart the recurring argument, but I'll just put this out
there: Why bother adding the cost of supporting a dual-stack network when
there is precisely zero cost for me to stick with IPv4? From a cost
perspective, if I have to assign everyone an IPv4 address and an IPv6
address to deploy IPv6, why would I bother assigning the IPv6 address? I
have plenty of addresses to continue handing out IPv4 addresses directly to
customers for at least several years, so there is no benefit to me in
adding the overhead of dealing with both IPv6 and IPv4 on a per-customer
basis simultaneously.
However, I'm willing to migrate (over several years) to an IPv6-only
network and run a CGNAT box to access IPv4, but only once the cost of
running the CGNAT box becomes negligible. Once that occurs, I want to start
getting ahead of the curve and set up a CGNAT box, then begin offering only
IPv6 to new customers.
Of course, the size and cost of the CGNAT device are directly related to
the flows and/or bandwidth, which is why I was curious about the
percentages. If it's 10% IPv6, then I'm not close to where I need to be.
If it's 95%, then I can (and should) start moving to IPv6. Somewhere in
the middle is the threshold, not quite sure where that number is.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 3:24 PM Mark Andrews via NANOG <
[email protected]> wrote:
You are asking the wrong question.
Switching on IPv6 doesn’t require you to switch off IPv4. You can but you
don’t have to. I find it sad that ISPs still think IPv4 and IPv6 are
mutually exclusive. Nobody is asking for people to switch off IPv4. They
are only asking that you enable IPv6 so they can reach you without having
to run the traffic though a CGN 44 or 64.
For most eyeball networks the majority of your traffic will be IPv6 the
moment you turn IPv6 on as most of the large content providers offer IPv6
and implementations prefer IPv6.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews
On 20 Jun 2025, at 06:13, Forrest Christian (List Account) via NANOG <
[email protected]> wrote:
I see numerous statistics from Google and similar sources that indicate
the
percentage of end users who are IPv6 native. What I'm missing are
statistics going the other way - what percentage of sites (or endpoints
that customers regularly connect to) are IPv6-native, from a total
traffic
perspective?
That is, if I switch to IPv6 on my eyeball network, how much of my
existing
traffic will I have to CGNAT in some way to reach the IPv4-only network?
We have sufficient IPv4 address resources to stick with IPv4 for the
foreseeable future. However, at some point, the percentage of traffic
using IPv6 becomes so high that the reasons not to move become less
significant. For example, the CGNAT box becomes significantly smaller,
as
most of the traffic should flow around it on IPv6.
--
- Forrest
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ZWNAGD3GM6VKKNBE3QE5HHRJ26C4UXJF/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/A75BIETJQDTWUGEZQWSGKNE2L5SQPNHZ/
--
- Forrest
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/FKFUZUB57MSQ7PNRVE5IUKTJL345WEET/
--
- Forrest
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NLEG5VLBTJOXTQEZ5B3BTBPHY6C2DN4I/
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ZVYKHGCUYM7JJTCJLNQ75U6DOVR3NXEN/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/HFBDSWGNSLIM25TNIM7BLFUPEVQPZNP4/
