Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: For the v6 'Net to be used, customers - you know the people who pay for those router things and that fiber stuff and all our salaries and such - need to feel some comfort around it actually working. This did not help that comfort level. And I believe it is valid to ask about it. That is entirely correct and I'm glad you asked that question! ;) Let me explain: (Lots of truisms here, bear with me!) IPv6 is newer than IPv4. As IPv6 is newer than IPv4, the equipment to support IPv6 natively is newer than legacy equipment already deployed that only supports IPv4. As the equipment that supports native IPv6 is newer, there are fewer core networks that run native IPv6. As these new IPv6 networks are deployed they are growing and developing. (Like neurons forming connections, the IPv6 network is.) Deployment of IPv6 in the core has been growing year to year, with that growth accelerating. In fact, I'd tell trend watchers of business econometrics the accelerating growth curve both represents something important happening right now and something that is likely to have real world implications for Internet infrastructure companies in the future: http://bgp.potaroo.net/cgi-bin/plot?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas6447%2fbgp%2dactive%2etxtdescr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29with=step (Short url: http://tiny.cc/An6fl ) If you are in the connectivity business, you can add a caption to this graph of your choosing: Ignore at your own peril. Or (I like this one): I see opportunity. However, the question still stands about the stability, and therefor, utility of the v6 'Net. Is it still some bastard child, some beta test, some side project? As you know, the IPv4 Internet of today is a product of the hard work of people of yore (ok well, more seriously, a large number of the people on this list and at networks around the world). The nature of things is that the coherent shared illusion of a single Internet routing table is the result of a rough consensus produced by years and years and years of accumulated business relationships and network engineer routing policy configurations. IPv6 is going through that phase right now, at accelerated pace. Perhaps geometric growth is not good enough for you as a business person. Perhaps where we are on the curve is not good enough for you yet. Perhaps you'd like to retire before working with another protocol. I hereby apologize to you on behalf of IPv6 that it has not had the same three decades of deployment and experimentation as IPv4. ;) IPv6 is not going to spring into existence as a fully complete global network to replace IPv4 on a specific flag day (December 21st 2012?). IPv6 will grow in deployment at the same time the Internet continues to work, at what appears to be on a geometric growth curve, due to some reasons a business economist can write a paper about. Network effect? Risk avoidance due to IPv4 run out? Risk avoidance due to technology shift? Yukon gold rush? The after the fact result of careful planning by thoughtful people started years earlier? Or perhaps, the projected functional economic value of IP addresses? Or is it ready to have _revenue_producing_ traffic put on it? IPv6 is production for some value of the word production. We see traffic around 1.5 Gbps, peaks at 2 Gbps and growing... Perhaps this says something about the amount of traffic that will be seen when it gets used widely. 1000 times as much? (Our guess) What's your guess? Warning! If you pick a low number you are saying that IPv6 is in widespread production use right now. :-P In summary, we have the standard Chicken Egg problem. No one cares about v6, speak for yourself (introduce into evidence exhibit 1: the graph linked to above, exhibit 2: we note how part of the original poster's problem got fixed that day). so no one puts anything important on v6, speak for yourself (reference real traffic above). Once upon a time, something called IPv4 was invented, and some people created hardware for it, wrote software for it, tried it out, wrote some papers, wrote some RFCs (after writing working code, the way it should be done LOL), and then experimented some more. There were lots of problems that got solved, things that worked in real life in spite of theoretical problems, and bugs that got fixed. Some companies got created... blah blah blah. Sad times for the future of the Internet if we all need to use v6 Real Soon Now. Or, expect real freaking huge opportunity and dislocation ahead. Of course, this dislocation may only affect some specific players and companies and industries. For the regular user it could just happen transparently that by the time they get their next computer with Microsoft Windows 9 or Ubuntu Quick Quagga... it just works. Imagine, what would it be like if all the core network operators
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More importantly, you are missing the point. and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something for which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more. randy
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Randy Bush wrote: I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More importantly, you are missing the point. and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something for which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more. I expanded to try and get you to see the point. I obviously failed. I shall not bother to try again as I'm worried the failure was at least partially because you would rather be pithy than see the point not matter how fully explained. As for facts, there is lots of basis. HE has run a network for decades and has never let a v4 bifurcation happen so long. Ever. They've run v6 for a few years yet it happened. Asking the network in question's view on this perfectly reasonable - in fact the opposite would be unreasonable. As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of anything. Typing less does not mean you are actually thinking. You should try the latter before your next pithy post. Or at least read the post to which you are replying. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of anything. From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400 Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering In-Reply-To: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com References: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: 0a37fd5d-d9d1-4d89-ac8a-105612bb8...@ianai.net ... It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when they are big. The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status. I never thought HE would be one of those networks.
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
You really can't read, can you? And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it, perhaps you should clam down? -- TTFN, patrick On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Randy Bush wrote: As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of anything. From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400 Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering In-Reply-To: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com References: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: 0a37fd5d-d9d1-4d89-ac8a-105612bb8...@ianai.net ... It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when they are big. The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status. I never thought HE would be one of those networks. From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net Date: October 12, 2009 12:49:02 PM EDT To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering To be clear, I was not trying to imply that HE has a closed policy. But I can see how people might think that given my Cogent example. My apologies to HE. And to be fair, I'm pounding on HE because they've always cared about their customers. I expect Telia to care more about their own ego than their customers' connectivity. So banging on them is nonproductive. In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6 has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its own. Anyway, I have confidence HE is trying to fix this. But I still think the fact that it happened - whatever the reason - is a black eye for the v6 Internet, whatever the hell that is.
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
Patrick W. Gilmore (patrick) writes: You really can't read, can you? And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it, perhaps you should clam down? I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes, but never of being a shellfish. P.
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
You really can't read, can you? And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it, perhaps you should clam down? I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes, but never of being a shellfish. i am from the pacific northwest. so shellfish is good. it's endless aggressive/defensive bs that is harder to let go by without calling it. randy
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
Randy Bush wrote: As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of anything. From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400 Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering In-Reply-To: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com References: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: 0a37fd5d-d9d1-4d89-ac8a-105612bb8...@ianai.net ... It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when they are big. The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status. I never thought HE would be one of those networks. The only thing Patrick is guilty of is not providing enough context. The party at fault here is Cogent. If you re-read the entire thread and speak with Mike Leber, you'll find that HE offered peering and/or transit, for free, to Cogent - like they do to everyone else, and Cogent didn't take it, providing for the segmentation we saw. -Dave
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
On 10/14/09 8:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Typing less does not mean you are actually thinking. You should try the latter before your next pithy post. Or at least read the post to which you are replying. Now now boys and girls. Settle down and be civil. :)
Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote: sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened? Obviously not. Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that. many of us are interested in diagnosis. few in your lynch rope. I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More importantly, you are missing the point. For the v6 'Net to be used, customers - you know the people who pay for those router things and that fiber stuff and all our salaries and such - need to feel some comfort around it actually working. This did not help that comfort level. And I believe it is valid to ask about it. Diagnosis is good. Fortunately, anyone who cares knows exactly what happened on a technical level - HE has no v6 transit and does not peer with Telia; Telia had CW transit, then they didn't, now they do. Took less time to 'diagnose' than your one-liners took to write. Were you actually interested in diagnostics, you would have spent some time looking as opposed to trying to be pithy to 10K of your not-so-closest buddies. Unfortunately, and you damned well know this, we are not going to get a /real/ diagnosis out of a busted peering relationship. Especially when one party is an incumbent telco. HE typically - and properly - will not discuss such relationships (modulo Mike's Cogent post, which even he says is unusual). And Telia won't discuss squat, full stop. So why it happened is a mystery, and will be for, well, ever. Diagnosis ends. However, the question still stands about the stability, and therefor, utility of the v6 'Net. Is it still some bastard child, some beta test, some side project? Or is it ready to have _revenue_producing_ traffic put on it? When a network as solid and customer-oriented as HE can have a long outage to such a large network as Telia, I submit it is not. I know, everyone is shocked. But operationally speaking, this matters. We can either say but it was just v6, or we can think about how to not have this happen again. The former leads no where. Perhaps we should choose the latter instead of making pithy posts? If that is a lynch rope, I will not bother arguing with you. Pigs mud all that. But that doesn't make it wrong, or irrelevant. In summary, we have the standard Chicken Egg problem. No one cares about v6, so no one puts anything important on v6, so no one cares about v6. HE was trying harder to break that vicious cycle than anyone else, yet even they do not come close to supporting v6 as much as they support v4. Sad times for the future of the Internet if we all need to use v6 Real Soon Now. I asked for HE's view on that. Would you mind explaining why you don't want to hear it? -- TTFN, patrick P.S. Being a curmudgeon is useful from time to time. But only if you are, well, being useful.
