Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

2018-06-23 Thread Mike Hammett 
A couple of the big draws to Mikrotik (aside from the performance and features 
you get for the price) are Winbox, Torch, and real-time stats. Great features 
that don't really have an equal elsewhere. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Jared Mauch"  
To: "Mark Tinka"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2018 6:17:15 AM 
Subject: Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap 



> On Jun 22, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/Jun/18 15:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: 
> 
>> I’m not really sure “you get what you pay for” … compare with OpenWRT … you 
>> have frequent updates, even in days when some important security flaw is 
>> discovered, as it happened a few months ago with WiFi. You can even develop 
>> yourself what you want or pay folks to do it for you. 
> 
> No one disputes that, but there is a reason why operators are paying for 
> MikroTik instead of taking a white box and flashing it with free code 
> from any number of sources. 
> 
> They could either spend time developing free code on white boxes to a 
> level where it does everything they want, or they could decide for what 
> MikroTik offers for an integrated solution (hardware + software), the 
> time and effort are outweighed by the cost, as a function of traditional 
> alternatives such as Cisco, Juniper, Nokia, Brocade, e.t.c. 
> 
> Joe Average has neither the experience nor the inclination to flash 
> whatever box he has with OpenWRT. You and I do (well, I've grown lazy, 
> so...). Copy & paste for FTTH service providers dealing with thousands 
> or millions of customers who want to pay nothing for 1Gbps to their 
> house, and you quickly see why this is not an easy problem to solve. 

I’ve found most folks doing Tik need the GUI, etc to interact with the devices. 
I can’t say I blame them in some ways either. Have you tried to upgrade an 
IOS-XR device before? One-click updates in Tik are much easier. Even UBNT it’s 
fairly straightforward. Personally I use Tik for layer-2 stuff, be it media 
converters or switches where there’s not some other alternative that makes more 
sense. I’m comfortable with a CLI, but most people I’ve tried to say “hey, use 
this it’s better” say “I can’t http/https to it, the learning curve is too 
steep”. 

- Jared

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

2018-06-23 Thread Mike Hammett 
Your last paragraph hits it on the head. I hear people bash Mikrotik, but then 
I've heard many times people with  vendor's gear complaining just as much 
(just about different things) and they're paying significantly more for that 
privilege. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 6:23:21 AM 
Subject: Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap 



On 22/Jun/18 12:47, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: 


> 
> Yeah I can confirm, as I tested it several times, 6to4 for them is 
> proto41, but it is very confusing and against standards nomenclature … 
> This don’t say anything good from a vendor, in my opinion! 
> 

Even those networks I know running MikroTik for revenue generation don't 
run around saying they think they are working with the best vendor :-). 

But the truth is in the numbers - I'm to find another vendor in my parts 
that sells more gear without presence in any country on the continent. 


> 
> 
> They basically run a Linux … and you have OpenWRT sources with all 
> what they need to implement 4in6 transition mechanisms, so no excuses! 
> I must say also that no excuses for other CPE vendors, of course, but 
> others at least have DS-Lite or even lw4o6. Very few offer 464XLAT 
> (CLAT part is what the CPE needs) or MAP-T/E. Hopefully this will 
> change soon. 
> 

On the plus side, MikroTik regularly push out updates for their devices, 
unlike traditional home CPE whose updates tend to disappear one year 
after you buy and install them, leaving the only option to update 
software being a hardware swap-out. 

Can MikroTik do more, certainly. But this is clearly a case of "you get 
what you pay for". 

On the other hand, Cisco have (yet again) delayed ORR until 2019/2020, 
if at all. Juniper have screwed up their EX switch CLI with this ELS 
monstrosity, a problem they hope to correct in 2019/2020, if at all. And 
I'm paying through eyes for those puppies... 

Mark.

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

2018-06-23 Thread Mike Hammett 
Not much limiting them to the sub-10G world, though. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Jared Mauch"  
To: "Seth Mattinen"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:06:24 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap 



> On Jun 19, 2018, at 11:55 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote: 
> 
> On 6/19/18 8:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: 
>> MikroTik is getting there but most people are just not enabling it either. 
> 
> 
> RouterOS still has "will not fix" IPv6 bugs, so that doesn't help shops 
> dependent on Mikrotik want to move forward with deploying it. 

I know. They’re very popular in the WISP and FTTH communities that are doing 
sub-10G as their aggregate bits. I understand the price appeal but not a fan 
personally. 

- Jared

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

2018-06-23 Thread valdis . kletnieks 
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:27:35 -0400, "Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG" said:

> Because, Apple adds a 25 ms artifical penalty to ipv4 dns resolution.
>
> https://ma.ttias.be/apple-favours-ipv6-gives-ipv4-a-25ms-penalty/

Umm.. It's 3 year old news that Apple implemented Happy Eyeballs.

And if you read, it continues on saying that both Firefox and Chrome use a 300ms
timer rather than 25ms.

The solution is, of course, to not build websites that need to hit 20 or 30 
IPv4-only
tracking and affiliate and ad sites. :)


pgpiE2cnMF4PN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

2018-06-23 Thread Randy Bush 
in small corners, e.g. home, i use ubiquiti erx.  i use the cli for
config, and the gooey for watching traffic levels in pretty colors.
they play well with both concast and at u-verse ipv4 and ipv6.

in san jose $dayjob, i am stuck with a cisco asa for cpe, a 1990s retro
antique providing job security for a thousand engineers who maximize
complexity.

randy

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

2018-06-23 Thread Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG 
From an Apple device point of view, ipv6 should be faster than ipv4 
where both are available.


Because, Apple adds a 25 ms artifical penalty to ipv4 dns resolution.

https://ma.ttias.be/apple-favours-ipv6-gives-ipv4-a-25ms-penalty/

So if you test facebook from a Mac/iPhone/iPad, it will definitely loads 
faster over ipv6



On 06/19/2018 08:32 PM, lobna gouda wrote:

Although  the FB link is vague but argument itself is true. We  just became 
more intelligent in deploying IPV6.  The same measurement if was done in less  
than a decade  for example would show that ipv4 is faster.  The dual stack 
implementation and the slowness introduced by Teredo Tunneling  were the main 
reasons and  now we are getting smarter having it deprecating

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/examining-ipv6-performance

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6555

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526
Things change, Ipv6  response is showing better has IPV4 is having more TCP 
re-transmission which the culprit is still not known ( need more analysis)  but 
fingers are pointing to the exhaustion of the ipv4 address so basically  CGN , 
load-balancers and address sharing.  Although  we can not eliminate peering 
links and Firewalls. Yet if we have exactly the same topology  and traffic 
crossing the links et Firewalls locations/policies. Analysis didnot confirm why 
it would have rather more harm on ipv4 than 6

  Brgds,

LG



From: NANOG  on behalf of Lee Howard 

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:46 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap



On 06/11/2018 05:16 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:

--- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By 


Meanwhile, FB reports that 75% of mobiles in the USA
reach them via ipv6

And Akaimai reports 80% of mobiles

And they both report ipv6 is faster / better.


Let me grab a few more for you:

https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html
Preparing for IPv6-only mobile networks: Why and How - The 
...
blogs.akamai.com
Apple's upcoming App Store submission requirement around supporting IPv6-only 
environments (announced last year at WWDC and being enforced starting June 1) 
has been getting plenty of recent coverage. iOS application developers already 
need to make sure their applications work in...





https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/10/ipv6-at-akamai-edge-2016.html

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/28/ipv6_now_faster_a_fifth_of_the_time
which cites an academic paper
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2959424.2959429 by Vaibhav Bajpai
and Jürgen Schönwälder

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ipv6-measurements-zaid-ali-kahn/

https://community.infoblox.com/t5/IPv6-CoE-Blog/Can-IPv6-Rally-Be-Faster-than-IPv4-Part-1/ba-p/6419


https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2281


I'd sure like to see how they came up with these
numbers in a technically oriented paper.

Most of the above links explain how they got the numbers.
Facebook, in particular, did A/B testing using Mobile Proxygen, which is
to say that they configured their mobile app to report performance over
both IPv4 and IPv6 from the same handset at the same time.
Others, including APNIC's https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf have a
browser fetch two objects with unique URLs, one from an IPv4-only server
and one from an IPv6-only server, and compare them.




   There
should be no difference, except for no CGN or Happy
Eyeballs working better or something similar.  Am I
missing something?  Same routers; same links; same
RTTs; same interrupt times on servers; same etc, etc
for both protocols.

  From time to time somebody says, "Okay, maybe it works in practice, but
does it work in *theory*?"

Busy engineers hardly ever investigate things going inexplicably right.

My hypothesis is that the observed difference in performance relates to
how mobile networks deploy their transition mechanisms. Those with a
dual-stack APN take a native path for IPv6, while using a CGN path for
IPv4, which, combined with the Happy Eyeballs head start, might add
501microseconds, which is a ms, which is 15% of 7ms. Those with an
IPv6-only APN use a native path for IPv6, while using either a NAT64 for
IPv4 (identical performance to CGN) or 464xlat, which requires
translation both in the handset and the NAT64; handsets may not be
optimized for header translation.

However, I have a dozen other hypotheses, and the few experiments I've
been able to run have not confirmed any hypothesis. For instance, when
one protocol is faster than another on a landline network, hop count is
not a correlation (therefore, shorter paths, traffic engineering, etc.,
are not involved).

Lee


Hmm...  Faster and better?

The links seem to be an IPv6 cheerleader write up.
I looked at the URLs and the URLs one pointed to and
pulled out everything

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

2018-06-23 Thread Jared Mauch 



> On Jun 22, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/Jun/18 15:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> I’m not really sure “you get what you pay for” … compare with OpenWRT … you 
>> have frequent updates, even in days when some important security flaw is 
>> discovered, as it happened a few months ago with WiFi. You can even develop 
>> yourself what you want or pay folks to do it for you.
> 
> No one disputes that, but there is a reason why operators are paying for
> MikroTik instead of taking a white box and flashing it with free code
> from any number of sources.
> 
> They could either spend time developing free code on white boxes to a
> level where it does everything they want, or they could decide for what
> MikroTik offers for an integrated solution (hardware + software), the
> time and effort are outweighed by the cost, as a function of traditional
> alternatives such as Cisco, Juniper, Nokia, Brocade, e.t.c.
> 
> Joe Average has neither the experience nor the inclination to flash
> whatever box he has with OpenWRT. You and I do (well, I've grown lazy,
> so...). Copy & paste for FTTH service providers dealing with thousands
> or millions of customers who want to pay nothing for 1Gbps to their
> house, and you quickly see why this is not an easy problem to solve.

I’ve found most folks doing Tik need the GUI, etc to interact with the devices. 
 I can’t say I blame them in some ways either.  Have you tried to upgrade an 
IOS-XR device before?  One-click updates in Tik are much easier.  Even UBNT 
it’s fairly straightforward.  Personally I use Tik for layer-2 stuff, be it 
media converters or switches where there’s not some other alternative that 
makes more sense.  I’m comfortable with a CLI, but most people I’ve tried to 
say “hey, use this it’s better” say “I can’t http/https to it, the learning 
curve is too steep”.

- Jared