RE: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Olaf.Bonness]

Nice to hear that you feel like that ;-).
However I’ve often got another impression. But may be that is a subjective 
experience.

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2015 23:05
To: Bonneß, Olaf
Cc: Gert Doering; Ragnar Anfinsen; Steinar Gunderson; IPv6 Ops list
Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, 
mailto:olaf.bonn...@telekom.de>> wrote:
I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the
3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling them 
"hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's 
v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN.  v6 
goes unlimited, btw."...

just dreaming...

[Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will 
turn red because of people blaming you as ISP.

That's not true. ISPs shake down content companies all the time - look at 
Comcast vs. Netflix, for example. I'm sure that as a large DT does its share of 
that kind of thing too :-)

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Erik Kline]

> Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian content 
> providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, and the 
> potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some sort of Data 
> Retention Directive, it makes sense to by addresses instead of doing CGN or 
> equivalent.

Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific
and somehow exempt IPv4?

(not a recommendation, but purely for reference:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6302)

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Mike Tindle]

> On Feb 12, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lorenzo Colitti  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM,  > wrote:
> I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the
> 3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling 
> them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since 
> it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN.  
> v6 goes unlimited, btw."...
> 
> just dreaming...
> 
> [Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will 
> turn red because of people blaming you as ISP.
> 
> That's not true. ISPs shake down content companies all the time - look at 
> Comcast vs. Netflix, for example. I'm sure that as a large DT does its share 
> of that kind of thing too :-)


Comcast (and others) could exempt v6 traffic from any user data caps / 
overages.   That might get both sides of the equation motivated.


*--- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -->>
| Mike Tindle | Senior Network Engineer | mtin...@he.net
| ASN 6939 | http://www.he.net | 510-580-4126
*--->>

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Lorenzo Colitti]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM,  wrote:

> I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the
> 3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling
> them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but
> since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading
> our CGN.  v6 goes unlimited, btw."...
>
> just dreaming...
>
> [Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline
> will turn red because of people blaming you as ISP.
>

That's not true. ISPs shake down content companies all the time - look at
Comcast vs. Netflix, for example. I'm sure that as a large DT does its
share of that kind of thing too :-)

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Tore Anderson]

* Anfinsen, Ragnar

> On 12.02.15, 12.24, "Tore Anderson"  wrote:
> 
> >Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium»,
> >when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors
> >offer?
> 
> Keep in mind that end customers don't care about IP addresses but 
> services, and as long as CGN like technology reduces the service
> level.

That depends on the service used, doesn't it?

There's a non-zero amount of end customers who *do* care about IPv6.
After all, you do have a opt-in service which several thousand of your
customers did actually opt in to - so it would seem to me that several
thousands of your own customers disagree with your statement above.

In the same way, you in all likelihood have a non-zero amount of end
customers who do care about having a public IPv4 address all to
themselves. If you did make this an opt-in feature, I'm sure you'd have
many thousands of users opting in to that, too.

But if you flip it around, there's a non-zero amount of end customers
who do not care about neither having an exclusive public IPv4 address
nor about having IPv6. If I were to venture a guess, that group would
constitute the majority of your customers. Reclaiming those addresses
would likely allow you to postpone your next IPv4 purchase quite a
while, so I'd give that approach serious consideration if I were you.

Obviously if you do so, you'll also want to automatic provision those
users with IPv6 simultaneously, to reduce the chance that they will
actually notice anything and opt in to the public IPv4 service.

> As of today every service available on IPv6 is also available
> on IPv4, hence as long as one uses native IPv4 the service is what we
> call a Premium service.

Every service that's available over 4G mobile networks is available
over 3G as well, but even so you might have noticed how the Competition
Authority recently reprimanted the MVNO One Call for advertising their
3G-only service as being «equally good» as the (4G-capable) competition.

There's also now data that suggest that IPv6 has over the last few
years overtaken IPv4 as the performance leader, so even if you moderate
the «premium» claim to say that an IPv4-only is «equally good» as
dualstack, you'd still be on shaky ground. As an absolute minimum you
need feature parity with the competition before you can credibly claim
to have a «premium» service, IMHO.

http://www.slideshare.net/apnic/2014-0917v6performance-141076

Tore

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ole Troan]

>> I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the
>> 3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling
>> them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but
>> since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading
>> our CGN.  v6 goes unlimited, btw."...
> 
> I wish we could, but as long as the service is user driven, and it
> basically is the product and sales people selling the service, it is
> almost as hard to persuade them as it is to persuade the content provider.
> :)
> 
> However, in Norway there are some movement on the content side as the
> government has started to show real interest on implementing IPv6. They
> are working on changing the procurement procedures to demand IPv6 on all
> IT investments for the public sector. So hopefully, they will help to show
> the other big content providers that it is time to move.

in Norway 53% if content (in traffic) is available over IPv6, but only 9% of 
users have IPv6 access.
no doubt that we need to ensure everyone does their part, but it is pretty 
clear that we're missing IPv6 to end users.

cheers,
Ole


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Anfinsen, Ragnar]

On 12.02.15, 14.14, "Gert Doering"  wrote:



>I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the
>3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling
>them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but
>since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading
>our CGN.  v6 goes unlimited, btw."...

I wish we could, but as long as the service is user driven, and it 
basically is the product and sales people selling the service, it is 
almost as hard to persuade them as it is to persuade the content provider. 
:)

However, in Norway there are some movement on the content side as the 
government has started to show real interest on implementing IPv6. They 
are working on changing the procurement procedures to demand IPv6 on all 
IT investments for the public sector. So hopefully, they will help to show 
the other big content providers that it is time to move.

/Ragnar

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Anfinsen, Ragnar]

On 12.02.15, 12.24, "Tore Anderson"  wrote:



>IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start
>shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those
>reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs).
>
>However, once you have implemented IPv6 (and I understand that your new
>network architecture supports native IPv6?), you can actually do stuff
>like that. Mikael already mentioned MAP and lw4o6, and I'd just like to
>add that this does not necessarily mean oversubscription of IPv4
>addresses - at least with MAP, you can still assign "whole" /32s to
>customers (or even larger prefixes for that matter).
>
>These technologies also allow for more efficient utilisation of your
>available IPv4 address space then what you're usually able to
>accomplish in a traditional IPv4 network. If you assign a /24 to the
>MAP service, you can make use of every single one of the 256 IP
>addresses - including the .0 and .255 if you so desire.
>
>You can do similar stuff in the data centre BTW, and I'm sure my
>employer would be happy to have me help you out with that. ;-)

Thnx... Might take you up on that one... ;)

>
>> A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6
>> and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium
>> level on our Internet access.
>
>Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium»,
>when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors
>offer?

Keep in mind that end customers don't care about IP addresses but 
services, and as long as CGN like technology reduces the service level. As 
of today every service available on IPv6 is also available on IPv4, hence 
as long as one uses native IPv4 the service is what we call a Premium 
service.

/Ragnar

Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Eric Vyncke (evyncke)]

Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To
mimick NAT44 ?

-éric

On 12/02/15 14:00, "Thomas Schäfer"  wrote:

>Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com:
>>> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers
>>>mostly
>>> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite.
>>>They
>>> have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
>>> and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.
>>>
>>> xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox?  I was under the
>>impresion
>> that xbox works well with IPv6.
>
>It was last spring/summer. You can find it also in the archive of this
>list.
>
>In short:
>
>xbox did not work at several (IPv6) providers. Some of them have patched
>their routers and found a solution with Microsoft (comcast).
>In other parts of the world, *the solution* was to allow teredo at an
>IPv6-Access.
>Because I don't own a xbox I haven't sniffed the network behaviour, but
>I observe some costumer portals (e.g. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone) and
>there are still problems, often related to IPv6. (can have other reasons
>too, like instability at all, Firewalls or something else)
>
>
>Thomas
>

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Thomas Schäfer]

Am 12.02.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Anfinsen, Ragnar:


Sure, but this requires our product department to look at IPv4 as legacy
and stop caring about customers who do gaming and have their own servers
and such.


No. We should help them to migrate their games and own servers to IPv6.

One argument (it is not true here ) against IPv6 is:
I cannot access my NAS/owncloud/vpn ... any more.

This stuff maybe used only by some users, but not irrelevant users.




Thomas

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Anfinsen, Ragnar]

On 12.02.15, 10.58, "Bjørn Mork"  wrote:



>As Steinar pointed out: You can help speeding up the process by enabling
>native IPv6 access for as many as possible (all?) of your subscribers
>today.
>
>I am sure you know that you can't completely skip the dual-stack phase,
>and that's what you need to tell your manager. Sorry, but an opt-in 6RD
>service isn't going to make IPv4 go away.  You need to force enable
>dual-stack access for as many users as you can.  And if you dream about
>doing IPv6 only, then 6RD isn't going to do, is it?  You need to roll
>out native IPv6 access, and you need to do that before you can even
>think about dropping IPv4.

My point exactly, and we are in the process of doing DS, but it needs a 
major network revamping. However, we have started this rollout, and will 
enable DS as soon as possible.

>Any delay in your dual-stack rollout translates directly to increased
>cost of buying IPv4 addresses because it delays the magic cutoff day
>when you can start selling IPv4 access as an opional add-on service.

Sure, but this requires our product department to look at IPv4 as legacy 
and stop caring about customers who do gaming and have their own servers 
and such.

/Ragnar

RE: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Olaf.Bonness]

Inline below.

-Original Message-
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+olaf.bonness=telekom...@lists.cluenet.de 
[mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+olaf.bonness=telekom...@lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of 
Gert Doering
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2015 14:14
To: Anfinsen, Ragnar
Cc: Steinar H. Gunderson; IPv6 Ops list
Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
> However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we 
> still need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many 
> content providers.

Amen.  Frustrating as it is.

I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the
3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling them 
"hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's 
v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN.  v6 
goes unlimited, btw."...

just dreaming...

[Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will 
turn red because of people blaming you as ISP.

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Anfinsen, Ragnar]

On 12.02.15, 09.16, "Mikael Abrahamsson"  wrote:



>On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
>
>> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no 
>> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product 
>> premium?
>
>Depends. Are you selling Internet access for data center hosting, for 
>business or for residential or for some other customer base?

Mostly residential and some business.

>If you want to support "power users" with your "premium product", then 
>I'd 
>imagine you need IPv4 address on your services for at least 5 more years. 
>There are use cases where power residential/business users can't get 
>their 
>applications running with port forwarding etc with CGN where multiple 
>customers share a single IPv4 address.
>
>If you want to support 90% of the residential customer base, and perhaps 
>50-80% of the corporate one, then I'd say you could stick them behind CGN 
>of some kind right now. You decide if that would be "Premium" or not.
>
>For data center, just charge extra for the IPv4 address and it'll sort 
>out 
>itself. Generally I would do the same across the entire customer base, 
>start charging extra for GUA IPv4 address and then you'll see what 
>customers care and who do not. Even it you charge a few EUR per month, 
>the 
>people who do not care will not opt for this, and you can stick them 
>behind CGN. The ones who do pay will pay enough so you can rent or buy 
>IPv4 addresses if you don't free up enough of them with your existing 
>customers being moved behind CGN.
>
>When you roll new customers to behind a CGN I would highly recommend to 
>provide IPv4 connectivity by means of tunneling it over IPv6, such as 
>lw4o6, MAP-E or alike.
>
>-- 
>Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Thank you, Mikael. Appreciate the feedback.

/Ragnar

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Anfinsen, Ragnar]

On 12.02.15, 01.05, "Ca By" mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

I always cringe when folks say premium internet.  Internet is always "best 
effort", we are all always reduced to the least common denominator for network 
quality.

Sure, but doing CGN or equivalent reduces the best effort of IPv4 even further, 
and we want to uphold the quality as much as possible.

I would say networks that only have ipv4 are not doing their best effort.  
There will not be suitable truly ipv6-only offering in the next 10 Years 
because of these laggards.

That said, buying ipv4 makes me feel ill. Please put ipv4 where it belong in 
the cgn / nat64 / MAP br / aftr.

Ipv4 is not premium, it is legacy services deployed by companies on a downward 
slide. . My customers care about fb and google and netflix, those are top 
services and all on ipv6

Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian content 
providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, and the 
potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some sort of Data 
Retention Directive, it makes sense to by addresses instead of doing CGN or 
equivalent.

/Ragnar

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
> However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we still 
> need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many content 
> providers.

Amen.  Frustrating as it is.

I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the
3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling
them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but
since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading
our CGN.  v6 goes unlimited, btw."...

just dreaming...

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Anfinsen, Ragnar]

On 12.02.15, 01.11, "Steinar H. Gunderson"  wrote:



>On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
>> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an 
>> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 
>>if 
>> we are moving towards IPv6?
>
>Maybe because the move is going too slowly?
>
>Case in point: http://goo.gl/q4EGQ3 shows disappointingly little Altibox,
>even though you've been talking about IPv6 for the last five years, at 
>least.
>Maybe it's time to stop going opt-in :-)

Thank you for your thoughts, Steinar. This really helps me answer my 
management team on why we should not need more IPv4 in the future... ;)

Kidding aside. Sure, we are late, and we have the same challenges which 
many others have; having to reinvest and rebuild to get true Dual Stack. 
However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we still 
need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many content 
providers.

/Ragnar

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Tore Anderson]

* Thomas Schäfer

> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers
> mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of
> DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow
> "teredo" over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native
> IPv6.

IIRC this was for communication between a dual-stacked XB1 and an
IPv4-only XB1. It's impossible to use IPv6 for that, because IPv4 is
the lowest common denominator. The XB1 is simply using Teredo to tunnel
P2P traffic over IPv4.

Is there any known problems related to IPv6 communication between two
XB1s that both have native IPv6 access?

> > Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told
> > that IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well.
> 
> Any public source/ statement from sony?

No, I just exchanged some e-mails with an SCE guy back in October. He
said:

«As for the PS4, the hardware was designed with IPv6 in mind and they
are planning to enable IPv6 at some point. (It is just a firmware
thing.) Initially we were told that the PS4 would launch with IPv6, but
in the end I think they were just so busy getting all the other stuff
done that they decided to wait on implementing IPv6 on it.  I know that
they are still planning on implementing it, but unfortunately no one
has shared any dates with me.»

Hopefully it'll come soon.

Tore

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Phil Mayers]

On 12/02/15 11:05, Tore Anderson wrote:

* Ole Troan


When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what
my current NATed IPv4 connection does?


If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find
yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is just


+100

Let me document something I ran into recently. Playstation 4 "party 
chat" wasn't working for me, with some people.


Detailed examination showed the fault was causes by a complex 
interaction between the UDP NAT traversal on the client, race conditions 
with the HTTPS-based control channel, and the iptables/conntrack NAT 
code on the CPE[1].


It made me mad, and made me want IPv6 :o(

Cheers,
Phil

[1] Details for the curious:

1. Client binds a UDP port and does a STUN discovery to determine 
external IP/port


2. Client sends external IP/port to HTTPS-based "control" channel

3. Client requests IP/port of other participants from control channel
   

4. Remote participant receives our client IP/port and starts sending UDP 
traffic to that port


5. Packets arrive at local CPE; no "conntrack" entry present, so traffic 
is punted to local IP stack on CPE


6. Local IP stack generates ICMP port-unreachable

7. Conntrack inspects content of ICMP port-unreachable, extracts 
"original" 5-tuple, creates a conntrack entry and links ICMP to it


8. Client receives remote participant IP/port from control channel, 
sends UDP data to it, from already-bound UDP port


9. CPE sees UDP traffic; tries to map internal port to same external 
port, finds a conflicting 5-tuple already present (from step #7) and 
instead maps to random port.


10. Remote CPE sees traffic from random port; no conntrack mapping; goto 
step 7...



The only way to get around this is to use the "DMZ" (forward all unknown 
ports) functionality, which you can only point to one device - good luck 
if you have two - or for the people managing the CPE to make the local 
"iptables" INPUT chain DROP, not REJECT, at least for unknown UDP. Good 
luck persuading lazy residential providers to fix that...


Grr. NAT sucks.

Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Thomas Schäfer]

Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com:

This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.

xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.


Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox?  I was under the impresion
that xbox works well with IPv6.


It was last spring/summer. You can find it also in the archive of this 
list.


In short:

xbox did not work at several (IPv6) providers. Some of them have patched 
their routers and found a solution with Microsoft (comcast).
In other parts of the world, *the solution* was to allow teredo at an 
IPv6-Access.
Because I don't own a xbox I haven't sniffed the network behaviour, but 
I observe some costumer portals (e.g. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone) and 
there are still problems, often related to IPv6. (can have other reasons 
too, like instability at all, Firewalls or something else)



Thomas

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote:


This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.

xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.


Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox?  I was under the impresion 
that xbox works well with IPv6.


This thread probably:

http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2014-March/009929.html

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Phil Mayers]

On 12/02/15 12:40, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote:

This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.

xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.


Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox?  I was under the impresion
that xbox works well with IPv6.


The Teredo implementation used for person2person connectivity in Xbox 
One does not have relays. That is, you can't talk Native IPv6 -> XB1 Teredo.


The implication is that, unless all parties in an XB1 session have 
native IPv6, all parties will fall back to Teredo-over-IPv4. As such, 
you need working Teredo/IPv4 for XB1 today, as you're very likely to 
need to execute this fallback.


Given that Teredo relays were the unreliable bit, I can't fault this.

The XB1 Teredo stuff is actually quite a reasonable approach.

Cheers,
Phil

SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[erik.taraldsen]

> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
> have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
> and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.
>
> xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.

Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox?  I was under the impresion 
that xbox works well with IPv6.


--
Erik Taraldsen

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Thomas Schäfer]

Am 12.02.2015 um 12:05 schrieb Tore Anderson:


And then if the gamer
then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it
abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's
statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up
actively *wanting* IPv6.


This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly 
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They 
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS 
and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.


xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.




Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told that
IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well.


Any public source/ statement from sony?

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Tore Anderson]

* Anfinsen, Ragnar

> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an 
> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more
> IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6?

IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start
shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those
reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs).

However, once you have implemented IPv6 (and I understand that your new
network architecture supports native IPv6?), you can actually do stuff
like that. Mikael already mentioned MAP and lw4o6, and I'd just like to
add that this does not necessarily mean oversubscription of IPv4
addresses - at least with MAP, you can still assign "whole" /32s to
customers (or even larger prefixes for that matter).

These technologies also allow for more efficient utilisation of your
available IPv4 address space then what you're usually able to
accomplish in a traditional IPv4 network. If you assign a /24 to the
MAP service, you can make use of every single one of the 256 IP
addresses - including the .0 and .255 if you so desire.

You can do similar stuff in the data centre BTW, and I'm sure my
employer would be happy to have me help you out with that. ;-)

> A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6
> and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium
> level on our Internet access.

Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium»,
when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors
offer?

If you consider the existence of optional/opt-in IPv6 support as
sufficient to call the entire product «premium», then perhaps you could
extend that line of reasoning to public IPv4?

In other words, give your customers to shared IPv4 by default, but allow
them to opt-in to get a public IPv4 address. Some percentage of your
customers won't care to do so as they're perfectly happy without (just
as they might be perfectly happy without IPv6), leaving you with
available IPv4 addresses you can assign to your CGN/MAP/lw4o6/whatever
equipment and to those of your customers who opt in to get public IPv4.

Tore

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ole Troan]

Mikael,

>> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate 
>> that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are 
>> trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.
> 
> Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't have 
> +P, so for instance my corporate VPN doesn't work because for some reason it 
> uses GRE.
> 
> I think we're going to have to do some kind of A+P for protocols with port, 
> and then do CGN (ds.lite) for everything else.

well, I think all applications will just end up having a P. if that means GRE 
over UDP or something else.
I would really have liked us to stop going down this path, but it seems like 
we're not going to be able to.

cheers,
Ole


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Tore Anderson]

* Ole Troan

> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what
> my current NATed IPv4 connection does?

If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find
yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is just
*so* *extremely* infuriating to have the game stall on you while you're
sneaking up for the kill, and suddenly three seconds later it recovers
only that now *you're* the one sitting there in a pool of blood,
waiting to respawn), you'd surprised to see how much grief there is
about which «NAT Type» one has and suggestions on how to improve this.

Gamers in this situation might also stumble across Microsoft's
statement that if you want to experience ideal online connectivity with
the Xbox One, then you'll want to be using IPv6. And then if the gamer
then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it
abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's
statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up
actively *wanting* IPv6.

Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told that
IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well.

Tore

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Ole Troan wrote:

But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll 
postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that 
end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.


Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't 
have +P, so for instance my corporate VPN doesn't work because for some 
reason it uses GRE.


I think we're going to have to do some kind of A+P for protocols with 
port, and then do CGN (ds.lite) for everything else.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Darren Pilgrim]

On 2015-02-12 01:41, Ole Troan wrote:

But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.


Home end-users trained to live behind NATs are users trained to live 
behind a NAT that supports UPnP and port-forwarding.

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ignatios Souvatzis]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:

> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
> postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
> end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

You mean, trained to see their downloads/web page updates break all
the time, like when they're in the mid of a tourist region during
vacation time? Hotel's WLAN's NAT tables clog, mobile phone provider's
NAT tables overflow. A lose-lose situation.

IPv4 will deteriorate more and more over the years. We have know this
for a quarter century now, and there is no way back. 

-is

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ignatios Souvatzis]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no 
> >> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product 
> >> premium?
> 
> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my 
> current NATed IPv4 connection does?

Since December of 2008.  You can't reach
uggc://cubgb.orireyl.xyrvaohf.bet/argybt
through IPv4.

-is

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Bjørn Mork]

"Anfinsen, Ragnar"  writes:

> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no 
> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product 
> premium?

As Steinar pointed out: You can help speeding up the process by enabling
native IPv6 access for as many as possible (all?) of your subscribers
today.

I am sure you know that you can't completely skip the dual-stack phase,
and that's what you need to tell your manager. Sorry, but an opt-in 6RD
service isn't going to make IPv4 go away.  You need to force enable
dual-stack access for as many users as you can.  And if you dream about
doing IPv6 only, then 6RD isn't going to do, is it?  You need to roll
out native IPv6 access, and you need to do that before you can even
think about dropping IPv4.

Any delay in your dual-stack rollout translates directly to increased
cost of buying IPv4 addresses because it delays the magic cutoff day
when you can start selling IPv4 access as an opional add-on service.


(Note that I work for Telenor, which is one of Altibox' direct
competitors in the Norwegian retail Internet access market)


Bjørn

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my 
> >> current NATed IPv4 connection does?
> > 
> > Today!
[..]
> 
> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll 
> postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that 
> end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

For me, IPv6 has always been about "IPv4 does not have enough addresses,
and as a consequence of that, pain and avoidable cost ensues".

Thus, I'm not sure we do ourselves a favour by making IPv4-cludges so good
that the pain is hidden well enough - the fact that Kabel Deutschland is
breaking SIP is causing quite a bit of pain at one of the bigger german
SIP providers, who are rumoured to look into IPv6 deployment now...

> For me I would get added value when I could deploy IPv6 only services at 
> home, e.g. mail, XMPP, web, SIP... VPN.
> And I could reach my own home whenever I'm travelling.

I can see that, and of course I have that for IPv4 already :-) - but
I claim that this is actually not something most (for wild handwaving
values of "most") users want, given that normal end users just don't 
run services at home, might not even have always-on components at all
(readers of this list are not "normal end users", your parents might be).

One of the major benefits of IPv6 I see for SOHO users is the homenet 
architecture with multihoming, SADR and service/ISP selection *by the 
application* ("use cable ISP for bittorrent, use DSL for web browsing").

We're not there yet, though...

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgps3e2AmF6HX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ole Troan]

Gert,

 So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no 
 longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product 
 premium?
>> 
>> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my 
>> current NATed IPv4 connection does?
> 
> Today!
> 
> (I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german
> cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their
> customers...)

But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate 
that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are 
trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

For me I would get added value when I could deploy IPv6 only services at home, 
e.g. mail, XMPP, web, SIP... VPN.
And I could reach my own home whenever I'm travelling.

With a devil's advocate hat on, IPv6 in my home right now gives me slightly 
more hassle than it is worth.
The only value is that I am able to reach my IPv6 only mail server from work 
and at IETFs, but that's pretty much it.

I can't do IPv4 as a service either (like relegate IPv4 to the edge of the 
network and run IPv6 only inside), because there are too many IPv4 only devices.

When's that going to change?
50% deployment? 90% deployment?

cheers,
Ole


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

[Gert wrote]
> (I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german
> cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their
> customers...)

Yes, they do break that. We had one case, where we replaced
IPsec with OpenVPN to overcome that issue.

KabelBW is selling business accounts with static IPv4 like mad, but
how long those last remains to be seen.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 5 years to go !

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no 
> >> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product 
> >> premium?
> 
> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my 
> current NATed IPv4 connection does?

Today!

(I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german
cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their
customers...)

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgpZeCde_WD1W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ole Troan]

>> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no 
>> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product 
>> premium?

When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current 
NATed IPv4 connection does?

Best regards,
Ole


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:

So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no 
longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product 
premium?


Depends. Are you selling Internet access for data center hosting, for 
business or for residential or for some other customer base?


If you want to support "power users" with your "premium product", then I'd 
imagine you need IPv4 address on your services for at least 5 more years. 
There are use cases where power residential/business users can't get their 
applications running with port forwarding etc with CGN where multiple 
customers share a single IPv4 address.


If you want to support 90% of the residential customer base, and perhaps 
50-80% of the corporate one, then I'd say you could stick them behind CGN 
of some kind right now. You decide if that would be "Premium" or not.


For data center, just charge extra for the IPv4 address and it'll sort out 
itself. Generally I would do the same across the entire customer base, 
start charging extra for GUA IPv4 address and then you'll see what 
customers care and who do not. Even it you charge a few EUR per month, the 
people who do not care will not opt for this, and you can stick them 
behind CGN. The ones who do pay will pay enough so you can rent or buy 
IPv4 addresses if you don't free up enough of them with your existing 
customers being moved behind CGN.


When you roll new customers to behind a CGN I would highly recommend to 
provide IPv4 connectivity by means of tunneling it over IPv6, such as 
lw4o6, MAP-E or alike.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se