Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
In message e230de23-ad00-4f3d-b384-ba52fa7b3...@delong.com, Owen DeLong writes: On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: =20 In message b53bef53-f327-44ed-8f23-a85042e99...@delong.com, Owen = DeLong write s: =20 On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: =20 =3D20 In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1106060732190.68...@goat.gigo.com, = Jason =3D Fesler wr ites: But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =3D populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start =3D= calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. =3D20 Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the = web=3D20=3D =20 sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be = even=3D20 remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial = =3D at=3D20 $dayjob. =3D20 IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough = =3D for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 = only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). =20 I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the =3D internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles = =3D (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit = percentage of the future network. =20 Owen =20 And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy to be proven wrong and only time will tell. =20 Almost every client does have a strong IPv6 bias if they have what appears to be native connectivity. The bias degrades rapidly with other forms of host connectivity. My linux and Mac systems certainly seem to strongly prefer IPv6 from my home. YMMV. Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6 connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will make additional connections. Owen -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
Cisco just published a report saying that bandwidth will increase 400% by 2015, http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2182 That does mean doubling every two years as far as it goes.. j On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote: 2011/6/6 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com: I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network. Owen -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6 connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will make additional connections. Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE? Owen
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
Thus spake Owen DeLong (o...@delong.com) on Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:37:00AM -0700: Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6 connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will make additional connections. Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE? Very similar, but with a static 300ms timer: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=81686 Dale
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
In message 8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write s: Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6 connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will make additional connections. Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE? Owen Chrome does something close using 300ms. There is code out there that does it and there really should be lots more of it as it mitigates lots of problems. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On 07/06/11 15:28, Mark Andrews wrote: In message8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write s: Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6 connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will make additional connections. Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE? Owen Chrome does something close using 300ms. There is code out there that does it and there really should be lots more of it as it mitigates lots of problems. There's also a bug currently open for the equivalent functionality in Firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621558 -- Neil
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:58:05 -0500 Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: [snip] This W6D is about turning v6 on. At some point, many years from now, when everyone has got bored of supporting legacy v4 for a hand full of legacy users there might be a v6 only day where we turn v4 off to test if it can be generally ceased. Or maybe at some point a year or so from now... display a warning to all users accessing the site over IPv4; reminding them of the need to upgrade their internet connection to IPv6 in order to be able to access new 'premium' content :-) Hope it will NEVER happen
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at $dayjob.
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1106060732190.68...@goat.gigo.com, Jason Fesler wr ites: But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at $dayjob. IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1106060732190.68...@goat.gigo.com, Jason Fesler wr ites: But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial at $dayjob. IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network. Owen
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: ... IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network. Owen Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people on the internet? I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue at that pace. Matt [0] http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [1] [1] I am strongly suspicious of their data, so my estimate lops their number in half. If you believe their data, in seven doublings, we'll be at 256B in 15 years. I find that number to be equally preposterous.
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
2011/6/6 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com: I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network. Owen Internet' growth is measured by bandwidth rather than number of active operators or prefixes. Maxing a router's backplane or upgrading it won't change the network to a whole new thing, as most operators will just keep the old ways over and over. Considering the amount of trafic will double in the next 24 months or so, wich seems a reasonable assumption, I think IPv6 trafic has some more potential growth to come than v4, but even the later will still grow. Keeping that in mind makes me expect a very progressive curve for the significance of IPv6 in the overall bandwidth usage stats, unless eyeballs networks starts to make a major move towards IPv6 effective deployments. But honestly, while working mostly for eyballs networks, I can assure you even the largest ain't close to ready for such a move ;) -- Jérôme Nicolle
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
2011/6/7 Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com: Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people on the internet? I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue at that pace. Well, todays Internet is made of 1B pairs of eyeballs with a roughly average of 120kbps each. Todays average in France is closer to 180kbps, it was closer to 100kbps two years ago (the 3-strikes law side-effect made individual bw consumption spikes with the emergence of many streaming services, far more BW-hungry than soft P2P protocols like eMule), whilst operators gained 8% of annual organic growth (18 to 21M subscribers). That's a bit more than 200% in 2 years. Before that, the avergae bw consumtion was relativelly stable over the last 6 years or so, only the number of residential access subscribers grew. Over the years to come, we'll still see some regions with a growing number of individual accesses while the well-connected regions will see their BW consumption grow even larger with new services. Isn't it what FTTH deployments all around the world are all about ? -- Jérôme Nicolle
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message b53bef53-f327-44ed-8f23-a85042e99...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write s: On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: =20 In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1106060732190.68...@goat.gigo.com, Jason = Fesler wr ites: But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the = populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start = calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. =20 Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web=20= sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even=20 remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial = at=20 $dayjob. =20 IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough = for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the = internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles = (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network. Owen And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy to be proven wrong and only time will tell. Almost every client does have a strong IPv6 bias if they have what appears to be native connectivity. The bias degrades rapidly with other forms of host connectivity. My linux and Mac systems certainly seem to strongly prefer IPv6 from my home. YMMV. Owen
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: ... IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64). I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage of the future network. Owen Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people on the internet? Ah, but, today, we don't really have 1B people on the internet, we have about 10,000,000 people on the internet and about 990,000,000 people behind NAT boxes, so, in 7 cycles of doubling we'll be at 1,280,000,000 people on the internet. ;-) I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue at that pace. Likely, but, I couldn't resist pointing out the reality above anyway. Even without the growth curves continuing, the IPv4 internet will become a relatively small fraction of the total internet in about 15 years. Owen
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond. This W6D is about turning v6 on. At some point, many years from now, when everyone has got bored of supporting legacy v4 for a hand full of legacy users there might be a v6 only day where we turn v4 off to test if it can be generally ceased. brandon
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: [snip] This W6D is about turning v6 on. At some point, many years from now, when everyone has got bored of supporting legacy v4 for a hand full of legacy users there might be a v6 only day where we turn v4 off to test if it can be generally ceased. Or maybe at some point a year or so from now... display a warning to all users accessing the site over IPv4; reminding them of the need to upgrade their internet connection to IPv6 in order to be able to access new 'premium' content :-) -- -JH
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:58:05 CDT, Jimmy Hess said: Or maybe at some point a year or so from now... display a warning to all users accessing the site over IPv4; reminding them of the need to upgrade their internet connection to IPv6 in order to be able to access new 'premium' content :-) Somebody a few years back was working on free pr0n over IPv6 as a motivator, whatever happened to that? Or did it just die on the vine due to the immense amount of free pr0n available on IPv4? pgpvzFt5WaqmV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2011-Jun-03 18:20, Owen DeLong wrote: [..] FIrst I've heard of such a thing. There is a first time for everything ;) The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond. As you where not part of that group of folks, how do you think you can guess what their plans where? :) While I wasn't there, I have talked to many of them about the subject. But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs. Uh, right... There are then two possible results: - an actual realization at the ISPs that there might be a day that they need to do IPv6 I think most ISPs realize that at this point, therefore, little or nothing could be gained in this respect by such an action. - lawsuits from the ISPs because they got overloaded in their callcenters blabla... This is absurd. There's no valid cause of action. No content provider has a duty to prevent calls to an ISP's callcenter and there is no valid basis for an ISP to argue that Google is liable to them because they terminated services to their users. One of the other realizations was something that happened when the Pirate Bay went IPv6-only as their IPv4 connectivity was broken, people just appended .sixxs.org to the website and presto, they got the IPv6 version of the Pirate Bay over IPv4, including the torrents mind you. Now the website itself was not a problem, the amount of traffic from tracker was though, but blocking torrent clients and adding more boxes solved that issue mostly. Yeah, I'm not seeing the point here or how that would relate to any rational intent for World IPv6 Day. The other realization was that the burden will quickly fall on sites which provide IPv6 access, and that is something that will have turned out in a similar way as the above into a situation that will not work out positively either. If you got all the way down to this point before realizing that IPv6-only day at this stage was a bad idea, then, you weren't paying attention to your earlier thoughts. Just typing the above took longer than a picosecond, but it is always good to know that there are people who can think that fast and consider all the options ;) If you can type faster than you think, either your fingers are impressively fast, or, your brain is impressively slow. I'll leave it to you to decide which applies. The current plan of turning on s will, in my guesses, not have a major impact though it will break things for some people: Which is exactly the intent... To have minimal impact, increase IPv6 deployment and awareness, and identify places where things do break. - folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites when their local DNS recursor does not handle properly. Right, but those folks also already have a visible effect that they can debug. - folks who have IPv6 enabled already, already have issues with sites when their connectivity is broken, it will now just start breaking for sites that they 'rely' on a lot as they use them often, thus they will realize that it is broken. Many of those folks don't go to the sites where they have issues and so are unaware of the issues. This provides an opportunity to identify and correct a much larger portion of those. Finally, I think we need to make a differentiation here that you are not making. I already have IPv6 enabled, but, I have none of the issues you describe above because my IPv6 is working. The real issue is folks who have all of the following: + IPv6 enabled + Machines that think they have a legitimate IPv6 next-hop to the destination + The IPv6 next-hop is not working or folks who have: + IPv6 connectivity + Broken DNS resolvers in their path that do not properly pass along records. - folks who don't have IPv6 enabled (XP default mostly) won't notice a thing as they have no support thus nothing will happen. True, but, these folks are not a reason that content provider cannot turn on records. leaving mostly one group: - people who are technically not so clueful but do see in the news all the hype about IPv6 and suddenly start wanting it and enable IPv6 probably ending up trying to set up IPv6 and then breaking it in the process. I have seen bunches of folks already getting IPv6 tunnels solely for the reason of being ready for IPv6 day, while they are ready if they got working IPv4 and non-broken IPv6 ;) Actually, there are lots of folks running default OS configurations where their OS has decided they have
Re: Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:05 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:58:05 CDT, Jimmy Hess said: Or maybe at some point a year or so from now... display a warning to all users accessing the site over IPv4; reminding them of the need to upgrade their internet connection to IPv6 in order to be able to access new 'premium' content :-) Somebody a few years back was working on free pr0n over IPv6 as a motivator, whatever happened to that? Or did it just die on the vine due to the immense amount of free pr0n available on IPv4? They couldn't get enough transit to fully launch the experiment. Owen
