Owen, Lol. No, I'm a Mac guy. We think different :)
I suppose when an airport is first built, that would be greenfield. But this airport already has a legacy wifi system that we are replacing, incrementally. I agree that a case exists for building in IPv6 from the start, but this deployment already has enough new features, such as 802.11ac and a slew of new applications, that the customer wanted to remove ipv6 as a variable. -mel beckman > On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:47 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:34 , Mel Beckman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with >> that term. >> >> My understanding of the term "greenfield" WRT wifi is that there are no >> interfering signals to contend with. I don't know of any U.S. airport that >> meets that definition. First you have all the wifi of concessionaires, the >> airlines' passenger clubs and operations, and service organizations for >> food, fuel, and FAA. You can't control those users, thanks to the FAA's >> recent decisions restricting wifi regulation to itself. > > I suppose if you’re going to use that definition, there’s no such thing. > > However, as a general rule when I talk about a greenfield deployment of a > network (of any form), I, and I suspect most people, are referring to a > network that is not yet saddled with any legacy deployment issues. E.g. a > building that has not yet been designed. A situation where you can start from > scratch with a fresh design and specify everything from the ground up, at > least in terms of the major design factors in the network. > >> Acceptance testing is straightforward once it's been designed and scripted. >> You bring in a wifi traffic generator (from a professional test services >> company) that can simulate 1000 or more wifi clients to impose a known >> traffic load on the network. You then use sample passenger devices of each >> type -- smartphone, tablet, and laptop -- as well as various popular OS's to >> run pre-engineered regression test scripts, recording performance via a wifi >> sniffer. The sniffer capture then goes through offline analysis to compare >> actual throughout and response times with the original design metrics. You >> do this for selected sub areas having typical characteristics, such as a >> gate, security queue, baggage or dining area, at a time when it's empty. >> >> The testing process takes a day or two per airport terminal. Yes, the >> acceptance test needs to be revised and repeated for deploying IPv6. That is >> a small cost compared to the already-expended months of deployment planning >> and rollout. The incremental IPv6 acceptance test cost is in the noise, >> dwarfed even by the price of conduit. > > Right, but if you’re starting fresh with a new design, why not design IPv6 in > from the start? There’s really no incremental cost to doing so and your > long-term savings can be substantial. > >> I do agree that there are potential performance gains with IPv6, through >> avoiding NAT. But those benefits will still be there in a year or two, and >> will be much larger then than they are today. Moreover, the user population >> is not growing rapidly, and can easily fit into simple NAT with the >> airport's existing IPv4 space. > > Let me guess… You’re still running on a computer with 640k of RAM. > > Owen > >> >> -mel >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> How can it be a large, complex deployment if it’s greenfield. >>> >>> In that case, you need to acceptance test the IPv4 just as much as IPv6. >>> >>> The difference is that you don’t have to rerun your acceptance tests >>> 6-months later when you have to implement IPv6 in a rush because you >>> suddenly learned that your major client gets major suckage on IPv4 due to >>> their provider having put them behind the worst CGN on the planet. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 15:08 , Mel Beckman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex >>>> deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure you >>>> realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have been >>>> worth the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the total. >>>> The powers that be chose not to incur it now. But we did deploy only IPv6 >>>> gear and systems, so it can probably be turned up later for that same >>>> incremental cost. >>>> >>>> -mel via cell >>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In message <[email protected]>, Mel >>>>> Beckman writ >>>>> es: >>>>>> Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they >>>>>> can put it off till later then that's often good politics. >>>>>> >>>>>> -mel via cell >>>>> >>>>> IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go IPv6-only from day one and >>>>> not pay the IPv4 tax at all. >>>>> >>>>> The cost difference between providing IPv6 + IPv4 or just IPv4 from >>>>> day 1 should be zero. There should be no re-tooling. You just >>>>> select products that support both initially. It's not like products >>>>> that support both are more expensive all other things being equal. >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In message >>>>>> <cal9jlaba5no6yq99crhdgrthtsb0vgp3gdneu-vu2-4r_1_...@mail.gmail.com> >>>>>>> , Christopher Morrow writes: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is >>>>>> "allowed = >>>>>>>> for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less >>>>>> than 10,= >>>>>>>> 000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most >>>>>> mobile= >>>>>>>> devices and apps come ready to use IPv6 by default. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'we don't expect users to demand ipv6' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> aside from #nanog folks, who 'demands' ipv6? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't they actually 'demand' "access to content on the internet" ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since you seem to have a greenfield deployment, why NOT just put v6 in >>>>>>>> place on day0? retrofitting it is surely going to cost time/materials >>>>>>>> and probably upgrades to gear that could be avoided by doing it in the >>>>>>>> initial installation, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if >>>>>>> you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just >>>>>> waiting >>>>>>> to see a RA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Mark Andrews, ISC >>>>>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >>>>>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mark Andrews, ISC >>>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >>>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] >
