Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se writes: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote: You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the time and they're almost definitely while they're not on wifi (my site uploads gps data while people are skiing, so they're usually on cellular). I am in Europe. None of Apple och Microsoft mobile devices will do IPv6 on the mobile side. They won't do maps either. Does that mean that maps don't exist? Try to keep device bugs and network deployment issues separate. I don't know if they do special versions for the US market, but for general 3GPP networks, it doesn't work. IPv6 work just fine in 3GPP networks. Also in Europe. Bjørn
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Bjørn Mork wrote: Try to keep device bugs and network deployment issues separate. Please elaborate. What is a bug here? That Galaxy Nexus exposes IPv4v6 when the baseband module doesn't support it? I don't know if they do special versions for the US market, but for general 3GPP networks, it doesn't work. IPv6 work just fine in 3GPP networks. Also in Europe. I am well aware of this, I work for a mobile provider, trying to deploy IPv6. I have a few devices (usb dongles) that work properly, I have a lot of others that do not. But in order to deploy this in any meaningful way, there need to be handsets that support IPv4v6 bearer continuity on 2G/3G/4G. Until that happens, NAT44 using CGN gives better customer experience. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Hi, -Message d'origine- De : Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] Envoyé : mercredi 28 novembre 2012 07:57 À : nanog@nanog.org Objet : Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote: Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mobile now have ipv6 as a user option because it is part of the requirements for the oems. I have been trying to locate someone within Apple for months now to speak about IPv6 on their mobile devices. The wall of silence is impressive. The android manufacturers at last respond, even though it's not always the answer I want :P Mobile operators have some difficulties to get some IPv6 terminals.It is the reason why we have proposed an IETF draft to define some IPv6 profile for mobile terminals (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements/) IMHO it is strategic to get a document that specifies such profile. It is important that such draft becomes a WG document so all support for such draft on IETF v6ops ML is welcome. Such document will not replace discussions we may have with vendors but it is for sure a useful contribution to our common objective. Win phone 8 has a menu option for ipv6 but I don't think it works Yeah, it's like the Galaxy Nexus which has IPv4v6 in the menu but if you use it it asks for an IPv4 PDP context and when it gets it, it falls over and needs to be rebooted. I have been v6-only on mobile for 2 years now, and I feel fine. I am sending this email using a v6-only note2... dogfooding it. Yet, the rotten apples spoil the bunch as the saying goes... and hence 464xlat. Any progress with this, to get this into mainline? Then again, I feel we'll have proper IPv4v6 PDP context before there is any worthwile 464XLAT deployment, but for the long tail I would like to have 464XLAT in all devices. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Sent from ipv6-only Android On Nov 27, 2012 10:57 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote: Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mobile now have ipv6 as a user option because it is part of the requirements for the oems. I have been trying to locate someone within Apple for months now to speak about IPv6 on their mobile devices. The wall of silence is impressive. The android manufacturers at last respond, even though it's not always the answer I want :P Win phone 8 has a menu option for ipv6 but I don't think it works Yeah, it's like the Galaxy Nexus which has IPv4v6 in the menu but if you use it it asks for an IPv4 PDP context and when it gets it, it falls over and needs to be rebooted. I have been v6-only on mobile for 2 years now, and I feel fine. I am sending this email using a v6-only note2... dogfooding it. Yet, the rotten apples spoil the bunch as the saying goes... and hence 464xlat. Any progress with this, to get this into mainline? Yes, there has been progress. These code parts have been merged into mainline Android code base. Time to start bugging the oems, since it is merged at the aosp level. There are still a peice pending review, but there is enough merged code to get the ball rolling for sure https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/owner:dan-android%2540drown.org+status:merged,n,z Then again, I feel we'll have proper IPv4v6 PDP context before there is any worthwile 464XLAT deployment, but for the long tail I would like to have 464XLAT in all devices. Maybe. But the goal is to get rid of ipv4 constraints on the ue, not simply a foot race. But if 464xlat wins that race too, great. CB -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote: I am -- in addition to running eBGP for my employer -- also the acting network strategist and proper IP networking evangelist at my employer. Thereby demonstrating how far out of the mainstream your enterprise is, given that those roles generally don't exist even within the largest enterprises. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
I disagree, i simply see an additional fee for IPv4 coming about. And that in itself seems like it would make IPv6-reachable things a lot more compelling. could be. but ... i am a consumer end user. i wish to keep my bill down. unless there is a means for the user to exercise a meaningful method of billable v4 use minimization, given that there is still v4-only content out there, there is no economic incentive. randy
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
when the average consumer (real) broadband connection becomes v6 capable, about 40% of the traffic is instantly ipv6, thank you netflix, facebook, netflix, google, netflix, and netflix. 'When', or 'if'? The creeping proliferation of CGNs and the like, along with your example of TVs and oblique point about the sparsity of IPv6-enabled content/services/applications, does not necessarily support the conclusion that wholesale migration within the near- or medium-terms is inevitable. sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support mine. big initial ipv6 traffic bump but long ipv4 tail. randy
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote: sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support mine. Pointers to these facts would be greatly appreciated, especially as no one else seems to know where to find them. ; big initial ipv6 traffic bump This is what I question. but long ipv4 tail. I agree with this one, of course. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support mine. Pointers to these facts would be greatly appreciated, especially as no one else seems to know where to find them. to repeat, a very large broadband provider has said semi-publicly, and another has corroborated, when they enable ipv6 to an average consumer, 40% of the traffic immediately switches to ipv6. the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and non-youtube gobble. content is queen. randy
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote: the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and non-youtube gobble. Just because their users can reach popular content-rich/high-bandwidth endpoint sites via IPv6 *that they can also reach via IPv4* doesn't seem to provide much of an incentive in and of itself for IPv6 deployment. Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far more useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as an experiment, because their user base is outstripping their IPv4 allocations, etc.). --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
You can look back on Nanog56 and watch Liviu's presentation regarding implementation in the RCS-RDS network. Why, you ask? Because they/we can do it. IPv4 exhaustion is upon us. CGN will break some of the fuctionality of current day networks or rather APPs running on those networks. Because you have unlimited IPs with increased security... I could continue with the list of whys. The only why not in this entire talk is due to vendors. Core and distribution vendors have been supporting IPv6 for quite some time now while ACCESS vendors are still lagging behind. Most OS's(Windows,*nix,etc) run IPv6 this days and they have been for a few years now. PS: although this might sound silly here is a idea...have all the porn sites switch to IPv6 and you'll see a 20-30 fold increase in IPv6 traffic :)). On 11/27/2012 5:16 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote: the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and non-youtube gobble. Just because their users can reach popular content-rich/high-bandwidth endpoint sites via IPv6 *that they can also reach via IPv4* doesn't seem to provide much of an incentive in and of itself for IPv6 deployment. Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far more useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as an experiment, because their user base is outstripping their IPv4 allocations, etc.). --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Thus spake Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net) on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:16:27PM +: On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote: the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and non-youtube gobble. Just because their users can reach popular content-rich/high-bandwidth endpoint sites via IPv6 *that they can also reach via IPv4* doesn't seem to provide much of an incentive in and of itself for IPv6 deployment. I would consider 40% offload from your expensive CGN to be incentive in and of itself. Dale
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message alpine.deb.2.00.1211270558340.27...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abrah amsson writes: On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy about being in v6 land since I see them showing up in my logs all the time, for the few providers that have lit up v6. Not on the mobile side. Wifi yes, mobile no. I'm all for bagging on those two, but it seems pretty unjustified here. What they need to start doing is testing Apps for IPv6 only access capabilitity. This doesn't work today, Apps like Waze, Spotify and others do not work on IPv6 only access. One could just start adding negative reviews to any product that doesn't work in a IPv6 only network. Yes, you can start your reviews on Android with Skype, Netflix, and Spotify all fail to work in an IPv6-only NAT64/DNS64 3G/4G network This list needs to be updated, but it is a fair starting point https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnVbRg3DotzFdGVwZWlWeG5wXzVMcG5qczZEZloxWGc#gid=0 It is also worth noting that folks can certainly test IPv6-only apps using T-Mobile in the USA https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch, that's just one data point. And, 464XLAT on Android does enable these broken application to work correctly on an IPv6-only NAT64/DNS64 network http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 464XLAT and IPv6 tethering code for Android here http://dan.drown.org/android/clat/ CB -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far more useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as an experiment, because their user base is outstripping their IPv4 allocations, etc.). IPv6 deployment is not a short-term answer to IPv4 exhaustion. Can we please just put this to rest? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/27/2012 11:19 AM, Dale W. Carder wrote: Thus spake Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net) on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:16:27PM +: On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote: the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and non-youtube gobble. Just because their users can reach popular content-rich/high-bandwidth endpoint sites via IPv6 *that they can also reach via IPv4* doesn't seem to provide much of an incentive in and of itself for IPv6 deployment. I would consider 40% offload from your expensive CGN to be incentive in and of itself. Just a thought -- what percentage of flows is that 40% of traffic? Since it's mostly video I'd assume the bytes/flow would be far higher than the median. If you can get a reasonably high percentage of flows on IPv6, not only do take load off your CGN box, you can get higher users per public IPv4 address ratios and stretch your v4 allocation further. No idea if the numbers work out to make this a useful effect in the timeframe when it would be necessary, but it's a benefit I haven't heard voiced before. -Ben
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. This is a point that is probably more significant than is appreciated. If the app, IT, and networking ecosystem don't even have access to ipv6 to play around with, you can be guaranteed that they are going to be hesitant about lighting v6 up in real life. Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/26/12 8:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy about being in v6 land since I see them showing up in my logs all the time, for the few providers that have lit up v6. Not on the mobile side. Wifi yes, mobile no. You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the time and they're almost definitely while they're not on wifi (my site uploads gps data while people are skiing, so they're usually on cellular). I'm all for bagging on those two, but it seems pretty unjustified here. What they need to start doing is testing Apps for IPv6 only access capabilitity. This doesn't work today, Apps like Waze, Spotify and others do not work on IPv6 only access. Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 11/26/12 8:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy about being in v6 land since I see them showing up in my logs all the time, for the few providers that have lit up v6. Not on the mobile side. Wifi yes, mobile no. You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the time and they're almost definitely while they're not on wifi (my site uploads gps data while people are skiing, so they're usually on cellular). I'm all for bagging on those two, but it seems pretty unjustified here. What they need to start doing is testing Apps for IPv6 only access capabilitity. This doesn't work today, Apps like Waze, Spotify and others do not work on IPv6 only access. Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? Yes, it is the app's fault. They are either doing IPv4 literals or IPv4-only sockets The IPv4 literal issues is when they do wget http://192.168.1.1; ... hard coding IPv4 addresses... instead of using an FQDN like wget http://example.com;. Using an FQDN allows the DNS64 to work correctly. The IPv4 literals fail since the IPv6-only host do not have an ipv4 address to bind to or an ipv4 route to follow. This is the issue that i believe Skype has ... since they use IPv4 addresses as part of their signalling. Another one is the URL re-director http://cs.co at Cisco. For example http://cs.co/6017pZhN will bounce you via an IPv4 address literal which means an IPv6-only user gets a webpage that tries to load an IPv4 address and fails. The other issue is that the developers choose to use IPv4-only socket APIs instead of a generic network socket APIs that would allow v4 or v6. This is usually an education issue. This is what i think is wrong with the Netflix Android app, they tried to do some low level network tweaks using the Android NDK but in doing these tweaks they only used IPv4 socket APIs and fail to work on IPv6 natively or via NAT64/DNS64. CB Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/27/2012 11:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike m...@mtcc.com wrote: Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? Yes, it is the app's fault. They are either doing IPv4 literals or IPv4-only sockets The IPv4 literal issues is when they do wget http://192.168.1.1; ... hard coding IPv4 addresses... instead of using an FQDN like wget http://example.com;. Using an FQDN allows the DNS64 to work correctly. I can understand spotify, but don't really understand why waze would have a problem unless they're doing some sort of rendezvous like protocol that embeds ip addresses. That said, I'd say that the vast majority of apps don't have this sort of problem and will quite unknowingly and correctly work with v6. Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
In message alpine.deb.2.00.1211271746210.27...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abrahamsson writes: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far more useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as an experiment, because their user base is outstripping their IPv4 allocations, etc.). IPv6 deployment is not a short-term answer to IPv4 exhaustion. Can we please just put this to rest? But it will reduce the dollars that need to be spent to continue to prop up IPv4. Every IPv6 packet sent is one less packet that needs to be processed by the CGN *farm*. Split the bill so you can see the IPv4 and IPv6 traffic components and add a CGN loading on the IPv4 traffic. Mark -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
In message 50b512b6.1010...@mtcc.com, mike writes: On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programme rs totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. This is a point that is probably more significant than is appreciated. If the app, IT, and networking ecosystem don't even have access to ipv6 to play around wi th, you can be guaranteed that they are going to be hesitant about lighting v6 up in real life. Mike I've had IPv6 for nearly a decade with no help from my ISP. I needed it to do IPv6 developement. It isn't hard to get IPv6 if you need it. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/27/2012 12:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message 50b512b6.1010...@mtcc.com, mike writes: On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programme rs totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. This is a point that is probably more significant than is appreciated. If the app, IT, and networking ecosystem don't even have access to ipv6 to play around wi th, you can be guaranteed that they are going to be hesitant about lighting v6 up in real life. Mike I've had IPv6 for nearly a decade with no help from my ISP. I needed it to do IPv6 developement. It isn't hard to get IPv6 if you need it. The point is that most developers and others don't think they need it so they don't seek it out. If there were far more native v6 (ie, that it's there without having to do something proactive), the app problems would almost certainly work themselves out because it would become apparent. Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 11/27/2012 11:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike m...@mtcc.com wrote: Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? Yes, it is the app's fault. They are either doing IPv4 literals or IPv4-only sockets The IPv4 literal issues is when they do wget http://192.168.1.1; ... hard coding IPv4 addresses... instead of using an FQDN like wget http://example.com;. Using an FQDN allows the DNS64 to work correctly. I can understand spotify, but don't really understand why waze Why can you understand Spotify not working on IPv6? Are they known for having a generally shoddy product? Pandora works fine on my IPv6-only NAT64/DNS64 setup. As does Youtube and many other multimedia services. Is Waze much different from Google Maps? Google Maps works great, as does Mapquest on ipv6-only And this is the conversation folks will have...: Oh... Waze does not work, you should try their competitor it works great and I used to use Spotify, then i changed networks and it stopped working... now i use Pandora or Google Music would have a problem unless they're doing some sort of rendezvous like protocol that embeds ip addresses. That said, I'd say that the vast majority of apps don't have this sort of problem and will quite unknowingly and correctly work with v6. Yes, 85% of the Android apps i have tested (sample of over 200) work fine on IPv6-only ... likely due to just good coding practices ... not due to specific IPv6 engineering. CB Mike
RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market budget do you have? How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much ? These are important, yes. Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network operator and app issue (cough cough ... skype). It's my contention that IPv6 won't be widely deployed unless/until end-customers call up their ISPs demanding this 'IPv6 or whatever' thing they need to accomplish some goal they have. There are two basic value propositions: IPv6 is better, or IPv6 is cheaper. You argue that it must be better. I presented my argument in Dallas, that IPv6 will be cheaper than IPv4 when ISPs' costs to expand an IPv4 network rise. Some ISPs will, no doubt, raise prices for IPv4 service. Then IPv6 will be in demand. We can even express this now to app developers and consumer electronics makers: Don't let your app/device be the one that costs your customer extra dollars every month. Especially if your competitor's app/device does support IPv6. There are significant deployments of residential IPv6 now. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ I'm not expecting content over IPv6 just yet (unless it's a pre-release publicity stunt). I do expect some ISP in the next two years to offer an IPv6-only service at a discount to dual-stack. Lee
RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net] On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of devices attached to the network (never mind the number of things causing that rate to accelerate[1]) makes IPv6 inevitable at this point, you really aren't paying attention. What people ought to do and what they actually do are often quite different things. Again, all the attention being lavished upon CGNs and 444 and whatnot are quite interesting indicators of perceived priorities. A lot of attention was lavished on ISDN, too. More attention is lavished on IPv6. So a) attention level doesn't indicate priority, and b) even if it did, IPv6 wins. Also, CGN does not preclude IPv6; it makes most sense (if at all) as a backstop for situations when IPv6 doesn't work and IPv4 addresses are too expensive. Lee
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far more useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as an experiment, because their user base is outstripping their IPv4 allocations, etc.). IPv6 deployment is not a short-term answer to IPv4 exhaustion. Can we please just put this to rest? It's the only answer we have. Yes, it's not short enough term, so we will have to deploy some hacks along the way to try and keep things running, but, if we don't also continue (and seriously accelerate) IPv6 deployment in parallel, we're in for some serious hurt in the near future. Owen
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 27 Nov 2012, at 14:50, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support mine. Pointers to these facts would be greatly appreciated, especially as no one else seems to know where to find them. to repeat, a very large broadband provider has said semi-publicly, and another has corroborated, when they enable ipv6 to an average consumer, 40% of the traffic immediately switches to ipv6. the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and non-youtube gobble. content is queen. http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/ suggests the figure is even higher, over 50% in some cases. Tim
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote: You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the time and they're almost definitely while they're not on wifi (my site uploads gps data while people are skiing, so they're usually on cellular). I am in Europe. None of Apple och Microsoft mobile devices will do IPv6 on the mobile side. I don't know if they do special versions for the US market, but for general 3GPP networks, it doesn't work. Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? They try to detect if there is Internet connectivity and check only IPv4, they use IPv4 literals and other things. I am not an app developer, I do networking, and when I connect IPv6 only to Android or Windows, a lot of things stop working. I haven't tried iPhone but I would believe the situation is similar there. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Sent from ipv6-only Android On Nov 27, 2012 8:39 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote: You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the time and they're almost definitely while they're not on wifi (my site uploads gps data while people are skiing, so they're usually on cellular). I am in Europe. None of Apple och Microsoft mobile devices will do IPv6 on the mobile side. I don't know if they do special versions for the US market, but for general 3GPP networks, it doesn't work. Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mobile now have ipv6 as a user option because it is part of the requirements for the oems. Win phone 8 has a menu option for ipv6 but I don't think it works Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? They try to detect if there is Internet connectivity and check only IPv4, they use IPv4 literals and other things. I am not an app developer, I do networking, and when I connect IPv6 only to Android or Windows, a lot of things stop working. I haven't tried iPhone but I would believe the situation is similar there. Just to quantify, a lot of things stop working = about 15% of the top 200 apps ... names like Skype, Spotify, tango and Netflix fail. Sorry to nit pick, but I want to make sure the scope of the issue is well understood. Meanwhile, 85% of the apps work fine like email (smtp, pop, imap, exchange), gmail, chrome/firefox/opera, facebook, twitter, youtube, words with friends, Google maps, mapquest ... I have been v6-only on mobile for 2 years now, and I feel fine. I am sending this email using a v6-only note2... dogfooding it. Yet, the rotten apples spoil the bunch as the saying goes... and hence 464xlat. CB -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote: Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mobile now have ipv6 as a user option because it is part of the requirements for the oems. I have been trying to locate someone within Apple for months now to speak about IPv6 on their mobile devices. The wall of silence is impressive. The android manufacturers at last respond, even though it's not always the answer I want :P Win phone 8 has a menu option for ipv6 but I don't think it works Yeah, it's like the Galaxy Nexus which has IPv4v6 in the menu but if you use it it asks for an IPv4 PDP context and when it gets it, it falls over and needs to be rebooted. I have been v6-only on mobile for 2 years now, and I feel fine. I am sending this email using a v6-only note2... dogfooding it. Yet, the rotten apples spoil the bunch as the saying goes... and hence 464xlat. Any progress with this, to get this into mainline? Then again, I feel we'll have proper IPv4v6 PDP context before there is any worthwile 464XLAT deployment, but for the long tail I would like to have 464XLAT in all devices. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today is unintentional. almost all ip traffic is unintentional. i want my mtv. money for nothin' and the chicks are free. from a friend in a big broadband provider when the average consumer (real) broadband connection becomes v6 capable, about 40% of the traffic is instantly ipv6, thank you netflix, facebook, netflix, google, netflix, and netflix. the brick wall is 'smart' tee vees etc, which do not speak v6, and will have a five+ year lifetime. randy
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote: almost all ip traffic is unintentional. Sure. But my point is the notion that observed IPv6 traffic volumes are due to deliberate migration is not correct. when the average consumer (real) broadband connection becomes v6 capable, about 40% of the traffic is instantly ipv6, thank you netflix, facebook, netflix, google, netflix, and netflix. 'When', or 'if'? The creeping proliferation of CGNs and the like, along with your example of TVs and oblique point about the sparsity of IPv6-enabled content/services/applications, does not necessarily support the conclusion that wholesale migration within the near- or medium-terms is inevitable. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
What do you mean with deliberate migration? Users do not care and they will never have a deliberate migration. However ISPs do, if the user have IPv6 it is because the ISP deliberate migrate to v6 by enable it in their backbone, networks and user's CPEs. IMHO if the user choose to change or not it is the least important, the real important fact is that IPv6 is taking up no matter if it is or not deliberate used by the users. .as On 26/11/2012 09:24, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 26, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote: almost all ip traffic is unintentional. Sure. But my point is the notion that observed IPv6 traffic volumes are due to deliberate migration is not correct. when the average consumer (real) broadband connection becomes v6 capable, about 40% of the traffic is instantly ipv6, thank you netflix, facebook, netflix, google, netflix, and netflix. 'When', or 'if'? The creeping proliferation of CGNs and the like, along with your example of TVs and oblique point about the sparsity of IPv6-enabled content/services/applications, does not necessarily support the conclusion that wholesale migration within the near- or medium-terms is inevitable. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: Users do not care and they will never have a deliberate migration. I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some industry imperative to light up network with IPv6. My point is that there is not. IMHO if the user choose to change or not it is the least important, the real important fact is that IPv6 is taking up no matter if it is or not deliberate used by the users. I disagree somewhat with this view. The significant question is whether the users are actually accessing apps/services/content via IPv6, or if it's essentially white noise. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some industry imperative to light up network with IPv6. My point is that there is not. We'll all be better off if we all move to IPv6 and don't go the NAT44(44) road longer than necessary. We can decide we want to wait for everybody else, which means we won't all be better off, ever. I disagree somewhat with this view. The significant question is whether the users are actually accessing apps/services/content via IPv6, or if it's essentially white noise. Why is that a significant question? If they have IPv6, they will access a significant amount of content via IPv6. If they don't, then it's nothing. I don't get why people are arguing that we shouldn't do IPv6 because IPv6 is so little of total traffic. There is so little traffic because ISPs do not turn on IPv6. The content is there now. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Why is that a significant question? It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative *importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the users and to the content/app/services networks. We are not yet at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet in order to do their jobs. We are not even at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet for recreational purposes. Providing IPv6 capabilities for popular content/apps/services like Google, Netflix, and Facebook is one thing. Creating compelling content/apps/services which are *only* accessible via IPv6 is another. I believe gaming developers are probably in the best position to provide such a stimulus, should they determine that it makes economic sense for them to do so. If they have IPv6, they will access a significant amount of content via IPv6. The definition of 'have IPv6' is somewhat nebulous, at present - that's part of the problem. I don't get why people are arguing that we shouldn't do IPv6 because IPv6 is so little of total traffic. I'm not making that argument. There is so little traffic because ISPs do not turn on IPv6. The content is there now. As Randy noted, some big destination networks have in fact enabled IPv6 connectivity to their properties. A lot haven't, however, and user application capabilities/behaviors also come into play. Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Unsurprisingly, this does not drive user adoption, and major sites won't add IPv6-only content while a significant fraction of users are v4-only. Stalemate. Damian
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 06:25:47AM -0800, Damian Menscher wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Unsurprisingly, this does not drive user adoption, and major sites won't add IPv6-only content while a significant fraction of users are v4-only. Recently, due to IPv4 scarcity some large mass hosters (OVH, and soon Hetzner) have started to charge for IP use, with pricing probably moving from current 1 EUR/IPv4 address/month to somewhere 2-5 EUR/IPv4 address/month. This price pressure both allows an efficient use of existing networks (by forcing customers to relinquish unused resources) and also will drive adoption of IPv6-only models, as these addresses remain free, for time being.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the most compelling IPv6-only content I've found. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? There is none. Why is it needed? We need IPv6 to make the Internet continue working and scale for the future. We don't need IPv6 to solve an individuals need, we need it for the long term common good of the Internet. Nobody is going to have IPv6 only content in the near future. This is no reason to have it. Users and content providers are going to be dual stacked. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Sent from ipv6-only Android On Nov 26, 2012 5:54 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Why is that a significant question? It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative *importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the users and to the content/app/services networks. Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who want to sustain their business. We are not yet at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet in order to do their jobs. We are not even at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet for recreational purposes. Providing IPv6 capabilities for popular content/apps/services like Google, Netflix, and Facebook is one thing. Creating compelling content/apps/services which are *only* accessible via IPv6 is another. Dont hold your breath. It wont happen, and in the end means nothing. I believe gaming developers are probably in the best position to provide such a stimulus, should they determine that it makes economic sense for them to do so. Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users. If they have IPv6, they will access a significant amount of content via IPv6. The definition of 'have IPv6' is somewhat nebulous, at present - that's part of the problem. Apple and msft os' s now make a clear judgement on that. So, you need to update your perspective. I don't get why people are arguing that we shouldn't do IPv6 because IPv6 is so little of total traffic. I'm not making that argument. Good. There is so little traffic because ISPs do not turn on IPv6. The content is there now. As Randy noted, some big destination networks have in fact enabled IPv6 connectivity to their properties. A lot haven't, however, and user application capabilities/behaviors also come into play. Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? Does not matter. And it will not happen. The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market budget do you have? How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much ? Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network operator and app issue (cough cough ... skype). CB --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Hi, Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the most compelling IPv6-only content I've found. Wow. Nice one! Sander
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/26/12 15:53, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the most compelling IPv6-only content I've found. http:///thepiratebay/.se./ipv6/.sixxs.org was popular for a while, when major ISP's in the Netherlands where forced to block 'The Piratebay' overhere in the Netherlands, I believe... -- Marco
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who want to sustain their business. I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users. I think it may be possible to make money with compelling IPv6-only content/services/applications. Apple and msft os' s now make a clear judgement on that. So, you need to update your perspective. I'm not very interested in their judgement. So, I'm quite happy with my perspective, thanks. Does not matter. And it will not happen. Proof by repeated assertion doesn't sway me. The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market budget do you have? How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much ? These are important, yes. Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network operator and app issue (cough cough ... skype). It's my contention that IPv6 won't be widely deployed unless/until end-customers call up their ISPs demanding this 'IPv6 or whatever' thing they need to accomplish some goal they have. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who want to sustain their business. I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users. I think it may be possible to make money with compelling IPv6-only content/services/applications. I disagree, i simply see an additional fee for IPv4 coming about. Apple and msft os' s now make a clear judgement on that. So, you need to update your perspective. I'm not very interested in their judgement. So, I'm quite happy with my perspective, thanks. Does not matter. And it will not happen. Proof by repeated assertion doesn't sway me. The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market budget do you have? How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much ? These are important, yes. Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network operator and app issue (cough cough ... skype). It's my contention that IPv6 won't be widely deployed unless/until end-customers call up their ISPs demanding this 'IPv6 or whatever' thing they need to accomplish some goal they have. In face of your speculation i present to you facts: Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Bing (... other content and app providers) along with many access networks (VZW, Comcast, ATT DSL, KDDI, DT, Free ...) now have quite meaningful IPv6 deployments. ATT DSL and VZW LTE are in the millions of subs with IPv6 at this point. These are not the result of an IPv6-only service (i think there was some v6 p2p service at Free), and they are likely also not motivated by Grandma calling up and asking for IPv6 or she is switching providers. Why did they do this? Because IPv4 is run out and NAT is bad. I am not listing my own deployment since we are not default-on for IPv6 yet, but will be RSN. CB --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who want to sustain their business. I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. Operators are all free to choose their own planning horizons. History is littered with the remnants of those with limited vision. Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users. I think it may be possible to make money with compelling IPv6-only content/services/applications. If you believe that is true you should do it and prove the point. Unfortunately most people that actually deploy and support applications can't make the math come out right when the access providers don't provide a path to 99% of the paying customers, then do just about everything they can to hobble bypass approaches. Apple and msft os' s now make a clear judgement on that. So, you need to update your perspective. I'm not very interested in their judgement. So, I'm quite happy with my perspective, thanks. The overall system includes the perspective of app developers, not just BGP knob twisters, so the point of having a widespread api base is critical to making progress. Does not matter. And it will not happen. Proof by repeated assertion doesn't sway me. It will happen, just not anytime soon. As the access networks get deployed, traffic will shift, so eventually the question about the expense of maintaining an ever more complex IPv4 version of the app to deal with multi-layer nat to support a dwindling user base will have to be answered. The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market budget do you have? How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much ? These are important, yes. Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network operator and app issue (cough cough ... skype). It's my contention that IPv6 won't be widely deployed unless/until end- customers call up their ISPs demanding this 'IPv6 or whatever' thing they need to accomplish some goal they have. And it is the contention of app developers that they can't make money on an app that that can't reach 99% of the intended user base. The entire point of tunnels is to break this absurd deadlock where access won't deploy without apps and apps won't deploy without access. Instead of getting on with it, there is an ongoing entrenchment and search for the utopian one-size-fits-all zero-cost transition plan. All this does is show how widespread the denial is, where people are refusing to let go of an entire career's worth of 'expertise' to keep up with the technology changes. Fortunately some have moved on, and are deploying despite the extra effort required in the short term. Once there are a substantial number of IPv6 access networks, the traffic volume will shift rapidly and people will start asking why the core is even aware of IPv4. At that point maintaining IPv4 will become the end user's problem, and they will have to find legacy tunnel providers if they want to keep that going. IPv4 won't die, it will just become an edge problem because the only reason to keep it running will be devices with embedded IPv4-only stacks which won't be replaced for 10 years. Tony
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
We have numbers to share. We have performed two experiments at two different events LACNIC held this year: - June in Port-Au-Prince (~110 attendees) - October in Montevideo (~400 attendees) The question was: What is the relation between IPv4 and IPv6 traffic in a fully dual-stacked network?. The answers were remarkably consistent. We got ~30% IPv6 in PAP and around 33% in MVD (actually in MVD we got over 40% in total byte counts, but we corrected for the IPv6 video feed that added a constant 1 Mbps/sec) This percentage is calculated as: 100*(bytes sent and received over IPv6) / (total bytes sent and received) In PAP we measured this using iftop and a couple of pcap filters on the Linux server we were using as 'router' (Owen was there and was of great help setting the whole thing up). In MVD we had a dual 7201s as routers and we measured traffic with Netflow. Warm regards, ~Carlos On 11/21/12 12:51 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Nov 20, 2012, at 14:44 , Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote: If you assume that Youtube/Facebook/Netflix are 50% of the overall traffic, why wouldn't a dual stacked end point have half of its traffic as IPv6 after June??? If you assume Kinda says it all right there. But more importantly, those three combined are not 50% of overall traffic. It _might_ be true in the US, for some times of the day, but certainly not world-wide overall traffic. If for no better reason than you cannot get NF in all countries.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who want to sustain their business. I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users. I think it may be possible to make money with compelling IPv6-only content/services/applications. I disagree, i simply see an additional fee for IPv4 coming about. +1 And that in itself seems like it would make IPv6-reachable things a lot more compelling.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 04:57 , Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: Users do not care and they will never have a deliberate migration. I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some industry imperative to light up network with IPv6. My point is that there is not. There is, actually. The fact that more users are constantly connecting more devices creates an industry imperative to light up a larger address space. CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow us to cope with a few years of transition while there are still devices in homes that are IPv4-only, but it certainly doesn't reduce or remove the imperative. Any ISP that fails to light up its customers with IPv6 in the next 3 years is at serious risk of having its customers notice that they are no longer connected to the entire internet. Since 2011, IPv4 has been becoming a progressively smaller fraction of the internet. Today, that progression is very slow and it's still north of 99%. However, there is notable acceleration and given the rate of internet growth, within 5 years, I suspect that even if everything that is currently IPv4 remains IPv4 and all new services are still deployed with IPv4 in addition to IPv6, less than 60% of the internet will still be IPv4 at that time. IMHO if the user choose to change or not it is the least important, the real important fact is that IPv6 is taking up no matter if it is or not deliberate used by the users. I disagree somewhat with this view. The significant question is whether the users are actually accessing apps/services/content via IPv6, or if it's essentially white noise. Really, this isn't the important question, either. The important question is what is the rate of growth of the ability of users to access content/apps/services via IPv6? Further, what is the rate of growth in the provision of content/apps/services on dual-stack vs. IPv4-only? Later, the important question will become what fraction of users can still access the IPv4 internet through 2 layers of NAT? As I said, at current growth rates, by q4 2017, that final figure will be less than 60%. If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of devices attached to the network (never mind the number of things causing that rate to accelerate[1]) makes IPv6 inevitable at this point, you really aren't paying attention. Owen [1] Things causing growth in the rate of internet attachment: IPv6-enabled light bulbs and other small appliances/sensors/etc. Smart-Grid/Smart-Meters Environmental Monitoring Sensor Arrays (things like projects to deploy literally millions of sensors in the oceans) Various 6lowpan based projects The eventual migration of what is currently Zigbee towards 6lowpan (OK, this one might be questionable, but it's certainly better for everyone except the Zigbee licensing folks if it goes that way) Public Safety applications (think telemetry-enabled ambulances) Bio-sensors (think remote patient monitoring, IPv6-enabled pace-makers and automatic-internal-defibrulators, etc.) Home automation Applications we haven't even thought of yet
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Compulsion won't come from IPv6-only content. It will come from IPv6-only users. Any content/apps/service providers who fail to provide for this fact before we reach that point are making a bet-the-business gamble on the theory that NAT44(4...) will somehow scale well beyond what is likely IMHO. When we reach compulsion, it will not happen slowly or gracefully. We will have hit a wall with IPv4 and IPv4 will simply and suddenly stop growing. Likely in a rather graphic and unpleasant way because it will likely be when we hit some form of scaling limit on the NAT infrastructure where it suddenly keels over and IPv4 only users are down for a series of outages while everyone scrambles to remove load from the IPv4 network in order to get it running again. The alternative is to recognize the coming problem, deploy IPv6 proactively to content/apps/services and then wait for ISPs and end-users to catch up and begin using those IPv6 capabilities. Owen On Nov 26, 2012, at 06:25 , Damian Menscher dam...@google.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Unsurprisingly, this does not drive user adoption, and major sites won't add IPv6-only content while a significant fraction of users are v4-only. Stalemate. Damian
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Owen DeLong wrote: less than 60% of the internet will still be IPv4 at that time. Do you mean IPv4 or IPv4 Only? Because unless the remaining percentage of IPv4 is noticeably less usable, it will still not incur any user demand, and IPv6 is still a cost mitigation strategy, and unless you wish to give up on connecting your users to that 40% you still need CGN, 644, what have you. Joe
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of devices attached to the network (never mind the number of things causing that rate to accelerate[1]) makes IPv6 inevitable at this point, you really aren't paying attention. What people ought to do and what they actually do are often quite different things. Again, all the attention being lavished upon CGNs and 444 and whatnot are quite interesting indicators of perceived priorities. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: NAT is bad. I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I'm unsure whether or not this is the prevalent view amongst those who control the pursestrings within network operators, however. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow us to cope with a few years of transition while there are still devices in homes that are IPv4-only, but it certainly doesn't reduce or remove the imperative. I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm unsure whether or not this view is held by those who control spending and prioritization within most, or even many, ISPs. Mobility (and everything is inexorably becoming mobile) is an obvious place where IPv6 makes a lot of sense, for example. But native IPv6 on one's own access networks and then gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for actual 'Internet' connectivity seems to be a significant direction. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Tony Hain wrote: Unfortunately most people that actually deploy and support applications can't make the math come out right when the access providers don't provide a path to 99% of the paying customers, then do just about everything they can to hobble bypass approaches. AFAICT, most people who actually develop, deploy, and support applications don't do the math at all. It isn't an issue of perceived importance within their worldviews. In fact, it isn't an issue of which most of them are even peripherally aware. The overall system includes the perspective of app developers, not just BGP knob twisters, so the point of having a widespread api base is critical to making progress. Apple and Microsoft are application developers as well as OS vendors. How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their application development organizations? How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their customer bases? How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are for corporate IT departments, beyond a checklist item on RFPs in order to CYA? Where are the IPv6-only SQL Server deployments within enterprises, for example? In fact, where are the IPv6-enabled client access LANs within enterprises? Or even the *plans* for these types of deployments/capabilities? Maybe they're hiding in plain sight. But I don't think so. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/26/2012 03:18 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Apple and Microsoft are application developers as well as OS vendors. How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their application development organizations? How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their customer bases? I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy about being in v6 land since I see them showing up in my logs all the time, for the few providers that have lit up v6. I'm all for bagging on those two, but it seems pretty unjustified here. How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are for corporate IT departments, beyond a checklist item on RFPs in order to CYA? Where are the IPv6-only SQL Server deployments within enterprises, for example? In fact, where are the IPv6-enabled client access LANs within enterprises? Or even the *plans* for these types of deployments/capabilities? Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host operating systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support lighting v6 support up that I can think of. I turned it on and it was pretty much a big ho-hum, cool it works. Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 14:53, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: It is significant because Why*) do you believe it is important to waste everybody's time with these kinds of arguments? We have seen your kind of thinking. First, the Internet was never going to replace X.25/Frame Relay/leased lines and baling wire. Then you didn't need a web presence. Then it wasn't necessary to enable Web access out of the corporate networks. Then it wasn't necessary to accommodate user-owned equipment in enterprise networks. And so on, and so on. While these great arguments are going on in the board rooms, we are building out the technology. So it's there when you finally decide to shut up and give us the money. You are much better off using your energy to plan ahead for that and ease the transitions, instead of inventing scales of significance that somehow prove to yourself you can continue doing nothing. Grüße, Carsten *) Well, I think I can guess the answer, so this is mostly a rhetorical question. The need for rationalizing one's own bad decisions is one of the most powerful ways to cloud critical thinking.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host operating systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support lighting v6 support up that I can think of. Where are the *deployments*, though? And lighting up IPv6 within enterprises is not a trivial task. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/26/2012 04:24 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host operating systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support lighting v6 support up that I can think of. Where are the *deployments*, though? Google and Facebook support ipv6. What more do we need? And lighting up IPv6 within enterprises is not a trivial task. Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream from their ISP's. Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: We have seen your kind of thinking. You totally mischaracterize my 'kind of thinking'. My entire career arc has been that of a technological evangelist. Yes, I think there's a lot that's wrong with IPv6, but it appears that it's the only path forward we have, for the foreseeable future. It is very interesting that merely expressing skepticism regarding the rate, breadth, and depth of IPv6 deployment, and floating the proposition that some 'killer app' is needed in order to stimulate IPv6 deployment, is met with such over-the-top rhetoric and vitriol. So it's there when you finally decide to shut up and give us the money. As a consumer, I currently don't have the choice of paying for native IPv6 connectivity because it simply isn't available in the part of the world where I reside. Which is the part of the world that everyone says should benefit the most from IPv6 - i.e., Asia - but is also a part of the world which has practically zero consumer-grade IPv6 connectivity options, and precious few commercial-grade ones. You are much better off using your energy to plan ahead for that and ease the transitions, instead of inventing scales of significance that somehow prove to yourself you can continue doing nothing. Why do you think I am 'doing nothing'? When I was at Cisco, I relentlessly pushed for IPv4/IPv6 feature and performance parity, especially with regards to security and resiliency (much good that it did me, heh). I continue to advocate this stance. I am trying to point out that there are a lot of barriers to the near-universal deployment, or at least availability, of end-to-end IPv6 connectivity. It seems to me that many folks are overly optimistic in this regard, and that there must be some kind of incentive for ordinary users to push for IPv6 connectivity in order for it to achieve critical mass. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream from their ISP's. It's hugely problematic to accomplish internally, never mind for external connectivity. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Cutler James R wrote: Have you looked at the current Apple software? It pretty much just works on IPv6. Yes, but it doesn't do or enable anything via IPv6 that it doesn't do or enable via IPv4. This also automatically brings along IPv6 capabilities. Capabilities deployment. Again, the most energy almost all enterprise IT departments are putting into IPv6 is to include an undefined 'IPv6-capable' checkbox on RFPs. That's it. What they do care about is reliable sharing of gossip, pictures, and videos. They also care about reliable video chats with friends and family. And it is these 'killer apps' which have driven the global deployment of IPv4 and the growth of the modern commercial IPv4-based public Internet, as well as the near-universal adoption of IPv4 transport within private networks. The huge economic benefits of mobile voice and data connectivity are the reasons behind its spectacular growth and increasing ubiquity. Mobile voice and data allow people to do things that they simply couldn't do before, and to do things which they didn't even view as possibilities before. My contention is that in order for IPv6 to become widely deployed within any foreseeable time-frame, it may well prove that there must be some content/services/applications which are a) greatly desired by users and b) only available via/possible with IPv6 in order to provide the requisite economic stimulus. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/26/2012 04:38 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream from their ISP's. It's hugely problematic to accomplish internally, never mind for external connectivity. But not because servers and client devices don't support it; they do. Bag on where the problem actually is: the death spiral of network vendors, ISP's and IT departments not wanting to commit and blaming each other. I primarily fault ISP's because they are, you know, the backbone. If they don't commit, the game of chicken continues. Mike
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: If they don't commit, the game of chicken continues. Right - so, what new capabilities/economies of scale/essential conveniences are made possible by IPv6 but not IPv4, pour encourager les autres? This is not a rhetorical question. I believe it is a very relevant question that most of those who have the most pecuniary interests in ubiquitous IPv6 deployment are not even considering. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Cutler James R wrote: Have you looked at the current Apple software? It pretty much just works on IPv6. Yes, but it doesn't do or enable anything via IPv6 that it doesn't do or enable via IPv4. This also automatically brings along IPv6 capabilities. Capabilities deployment. Again, the most energy almost all enterprise IT departments are putting into IPv6 is to include an undefined 'IPv6-capable' checkbox on RFPs. That's it. What they do care about is reliable sharing of gossip, pictures, and videos. They also care about reliable video chats with friends and family. And it is these 'killer apps' which have driven the global deployment of IPv4 and the growth of the modern commercial IPv4-based public Internet, as well as the near-universal adoption of IPv4 transport within private networks. The huge economic benefits of mobile voice and data connectivity are the reasons behind its spectacular growth and increasing ubiquity. Mobile voice and data allow people to do things that they simply couldn't do before, and to do things which they didn't even view as possibilities before. My contention is that in order for IPv6 to become widely deployed within any foreseeable time-frame, it may well prove that there must be some content/services/applications which are a) greatly desired by users and b) only available via/possible with IPv6 in order to provide the requisite economic stimulus. Well, at least you and I agree that IPv6 and IPv4 are simply Layer 3 protocols. Regarding there must be some content/services/applications which are a) greatly desired by users and b) only available via/possible with IPv6, your viewpoint ignores the millions and millions of end users/systems which will join networks around the globe in the near future. Those content/services/applications will only be reachable via IPv6 because that is all that can be deployed without truly horrendous and costly mismanagement of IPv4 address space. From a longer-than-next-month business viewpoint, it is more cost effective to deploy IPv6 than to continue the crude IPv4 hacks previously mentioned. Please note that this does not imply instant turndown of existing IPv4.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 26, 2012, at 15:10 , Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow us to cope with a few years of transition while there are still devices in homes that are IPv4-only, but it certainly doesn't reduce or remove the imperative. I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm unsure whether or not this view is held by those who control spending and prioritization within most, or even many, ISPs. Mobility (and everything is inexorably becoming mobile) is an obvious place where IPv6 makes a lot of sense, for example. But native IPv6 on one's own access networks and then gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for actual 'Internet' connectivity seems to be a significant direction. Interesting. All the IPv6 capable carriers I talk to are only gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for things unreachable via IPv6. If you've got an IPv6 capable cell phone on an IPv6 capable mobile network, I doubt that you get to google through an IPv4 proxy. Owen
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Interesting. All the IPv6 capable carriers I talk to are only gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for things unreachable via IPv6. Which is pretty much everything on the Internet. If you've got an IPv6 capable cell phone on an IPv6 capable mobile network, I doubt that you get to google through an IPv4 proxy. While I would be very surprised if you didn't, heh. Also, just how widely-deployed is IPv6 now for mobile networks? It would be very edifying to get some data around this . . . --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Cutler James R wrote: Those content/services/applications will only be reachable via IPv6 because that is all that can be deployed without truly horrendous and costly mismanagement of IPv4 address space. Our views differ in that it is my belief that said truly horrendous and costly mismanagement of IPv4 address space is the norm now and will continue to be the norm for the foreseeable future, absent some positive economic stimulus to do otherwise. From a longer-than-next-month business viewpoint, it is more cost effective to deploy IPv6 than to continue the crude IPv4 hacks previously mentioned. When considering the entire value chain of Internet connectivity, I'm not sure if that's a true statement, or that it will become a true statement in the foreseeable future. Please note that this does not imply instant turndown of existing IPv4. Which is part of the problem. ; --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Again, all the attention being lavished upon CGNs and 444 and whatnot are quite interesting indicators of perceived priorities. The problem is that CGN and NAT444 works with todays devices, whereas IPv6 does not (thinking mobile devices and residential CPEs). IPv6 is not today a viable alternative to CGN, one has to do both for a while before hopefully devices can do IPv6-only access and one can then have a centrally placed NAT64 (or similar) gateway. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy about being in v6 land since I see them showing up in my logs all the time, for the few providers that have lit up v6. Not on the mobile side. Wifi yes, mobile no. I'm all for bagging on those two, but it seems pretty unjustified here. What they need to start doing is testing Apps for IPv6 only access capabilitity. This doesn't work today, Apps like Waze, Spotify and others do not work on IPv6 only access. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: The problem is that CGN and NAT444 works with todays devices, whereas IPv6 does not (thinking mobile devices and residential CPEs). Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that I'm a fool for doubting all these (to me) wildly overoptimistic assertions about the coming ubiquity of native IPv6, end-to-end, heh. It sort of reminds me of how artificial intelligence has been only 10 years away for the last 60 years or so. ; --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that I'm a fool for doubting all these (to me) wildly overoptimistic assertions about the coming ubiquity of native IPv6, end-to-end, heh. Dual stack works with everything. IPv6 only access does not (with 464XLAT it might). However, people are complaining that operators are focusing more on CGN and NAT44(4) than they are on IPv6. Which I can understand, but I believe we're getting closer to getting out of the dead lock. My hope is that 2013 is going to be the year we're going to see widespread IPv6 (dual stack) adoption on mobile devices outside of the US. It's looking good so far. People are advocating dual stack now (at least that's what I do), for a future goal of IPv6 only. The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
In message alpine.deb.2.00.1211270558340.27...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abrah amsson writes: On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy about being in v6 land since I see them showing up in my logs all the time, for the few providers that have lit up v6. Not on the mobile side. Wifi yes, mobile no. I'm all for bagging on those two, but it seems pretty unjustified here. What they need to start doing is testing Apps for IPv6 only access capabilitity. This doesn't work today, Apps like Waze, Spotify and others do not work on IPv6 only access. One could just start adding negative reviews to any product that doesn't work in a IPv6 only network. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
2013 - the year of the NAT. (the only way a single stacked address family is going to be able to talk to a single stacked member of a different address family... and unless we start agressive reuse of v4, this will happen sooner than later (dual-stack is rate limited to the smaller of the address families -UNLESS- NAT makes reuse possible... :) But since NAT is going to be required -anyway- 2013 will be the year of the NAT. /bill On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 06:32:27AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that I'm a fool for doubting all these (to me) wildly overoptimistic assertions about the coming ubiquity of native IPv6, end-to-end, heh. Dual stack works with everything. IPv6 only access does not (with 464XLAT it might). However, people are complaining that operators are focusing more on CGN and NAT44(4) than they are on IPv6. Which I can understand, but I believe we're getting closer to getting out of the dead lock. My hope is that 2013 is going to be the year we're going to see widespread IPv6 (dual stack) adoption on mobile devices outside of the US. It's looking good so far. People are advocating dual stack now (at least that's what I do), for a future goal of IPv6 only. The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
In message alpine.deb.2.00.1211270628380.27...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abrah amsson writes: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that I'm a fool for doubting all these (to me) wildly overoptimistic assertions about the coming ubiquity of native IPv6, end-to-end, heh. Dual stack works with everything. IPv6 only access does not (with 464XLAT it might). However, people are complaining that operators are focusing more on CGN and NAT44(4) than they are on IPv6. Which I can understand, but I believe we're getting closer to getting out of the dead lock. My hope is that 2013 is going to be the year we're going to see widespread IPv6 (dual stack) adoption on mobile devices outside of the US. It's looking good so far. People are advocating dual stack now (at least that's what I do), for a future goal of IPv6 only. The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. IPv6 only is easy to setup if you already have dual stack. On my Mac it is System Preferences, Network Preferences, Advanced, TCP/IP, IPv4 - Off then reboot to clear any lingering IPv4 references. It's about as easy on a Linux and a *BSD box. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:18:13PM + Quoting Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net): How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are for corporate IT departments, beyond a checklist item on RFPs in order to CYA? I am -- in addition to running eBGP for my employer -- also the acting network strategist and proper IP networking evangelist at my employer. We have been buying v6 compatible gear and connections for four years now. We are configuring IPv6 on all backbone links and are carefully deploying v6 to workstation and server networks all over the enterprise. Where are the IPv6-only SQL Server deployments within enterprises, for example? In fact, where are the IPv6-enabled client access LANs within enterprises? Or even the *plans* for these types of deployments/capabilities? There are no v6-only deployments of SQL Server. The admins request and setup v4, the server requests and sets up v6, and the clients use whatever is in the DNS. The server will register in DNS so v6 has a fair chanche of getting chosen. Maybe they're hiding in plain sight. But I don't think so. We discovered that the HUB/TRANSPORT nodes in the Exchange collective talked Link-local v6 to the MBOX nodes. Service discovery. Magic. The Exchange admins had no idea, but that probably was because they are good, obedient employees and use the mandated email client, which makes viewing headers something of a challenge. V6 will, given a few careful pushes, deploy itself. Slightly exaggerated, but that's how it is. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 I love ROCK 'N ROLL! I memorized the all WORDS to WIPE-OUT in 1965!! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Mark Andrews wrote: The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. IPv6 only is easy to setup if you already have dual stack. On my Mac it is System Preferences, Network Preferences, Advanced, TCP/IP, IPv4 - Off then reboot to clear any lingering IPv4 references. It's about as easy on a Linux and a *BSD box. Well, they don't really have access to dual stack either, so... -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
joel jaeggli (joelja) writes: On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today is unintentional. In their defense, they don't know they have ipv4 connectivity either. They don't know it's not real IPv4 either :) But yeah, if Joe Random enables 6to4 on his Airport Express without understanding what it means, it still translates to more IPv6 traffic during evenings and weekend from residential connections. It's be interesting to come up with a metric to compare inadvertently vs on purpose v6 traffic. Free.fr, for instance, enables v6 by default on their 6th gen freebox (set top box). Is that inadvertent ? For whom ? Phil
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 04:29:15AM + Quoting Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net): On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today is unintentional. This is excellent! It is not likely that any end-user traffic over IPv4 is intentionally sent over IPv4. It is sent to Facebook. (eh, faceb00c, of course) Likewise, the -4 and -6 options for SSH are there for debugging and fault mitigation, nothing else. I'm quite satisfied that this now is the norm. It's the only way we'll be able to restore e2e on the Internet and evolve beyond simple client-server models like TN3270^H^H^H^Hthe web. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 I didn't order any WOO-WOO ... Maybe a YUBBA ... But no WOO-WOO! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/20/12 7:32 AM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote: Hello, On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100 Tomas Podermanski tpo...@cis.vutbr.cz wrote: It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) Funny enough, the peaks are indicating... week-ends ! Do people use more google during the WE, or do they have more IPv6 @ home ? from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. Paul
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today is unintentional. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today is unintentional. In their defense, they don't know they have ipv4 connectivity either. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Arturo is right.. Internet users could care less what protocol they use just like most of us could care less if the road we drive to work is asphalt, chip seal, or concrete. We just want it to be smooth and get us where we want to go at the speed we want to drive. I can see some things changing this, however, this sort of thing http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-ipv6-addressable-light-bulb-goes-on-sale could make consumers interested in asking for IPv6. Mostly, however, if we're really waiting for folks to ask for it we're going to have to wait a very long time. Cathy On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote: It won't. Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable Internet connection. If you think you can do that with IPv4, you don't need to do anything (well, just plan for some budget for your CGNs). If not, better start deploying IPv6. .as On 21/11/2012 12:40, Joe Maimon wrote: I have had approximately 0.01% interest from any user base. That would be an interesting number to watch change.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Arturo Servin wrote: It won't. Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable Internet connection. Which likely decreases the network effect. Joe
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:14 , Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: Arturo Servin wrote: It won't. Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable Internet connection. Which likely decreases the network effect. Joe I disagree. Because IPv4 will become connected to a progressively smaller fraction of the internet, eventually, users will come to care if we have not provided it for them. However, shame on any of us who allow it to reach that point. Owen
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 21/11/2012, at 6:17 AM, Tomas Podermanski wrote: Hi, On 11/20/12 7:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: I've found myself becoming a snob about IPv6. I almost look down on IPv4-only networks in the same way that I won't go see a film that isn't projected on DLP unless my arm is twisted. I'm a convert, and I'm glad to see the adoption rate edging up. However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* robust IPv6 peering and infrastructure and are ready to go, but they have not turned it on for their fiber/cable/DSL customers for reasons that are not clear to me. Turning IPv6 on at the basic/core of the infrastructure is the easiest part of the job. However turning IPv6 for customers requires a lot of effort and compromises. Some of the reasons are described in: http://6lab.cz/article/deploying-ipv6-practical-problems-from-the-campus-perspective/ and related presentation: http://6lab.cz/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tnc2012_slides_TncPresentation.pdf We (Internode), an Australian ISP, have native dual-stack enabled by default (and have done for a while) for almost all new broadband services (ADSL, FTTH, etc.). Our existing customers can turn it on via an online toolbox. All the broadband CPE that we sell, support it. It's largely a non-issue for us now. Most new customers running a 'current' operating system, who buy an ADSL or FTTH service and their modem/router from us, automatically get IPv6 from day dot without even necessarily realising it. We recently passed 5% of our customer base being on IPv6: http://www.internode.on.net/news/2012/10/288.php -- Michael
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 21/11/2012, at 3:05 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a number of reasons. AMS-IX publishes stats too: https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ This is probably a better view of overall percentage on the Internet than a specific company's content. It shows order of 0.5%. Why do you think Google's numbers are lower than the real total? It depends on what you are trying to measure and how you are measuring it. I don't know Google's methodology, but lets say its a simple form of the experiment: When presented with a dual stack object what percentage of users prefer to retrieve that object using IPv6 as compared to IPv4? Up so a year or so ago if a browser had access to IPv6 and IPv4 it would first attempt to connect using IPv6 and if the connection failed then it timed out and then tried to use IPv4. So the experiment would be roughly commensurate with measuring working IPv6 systems on end sites connected to workin ipv6 access networks of one sort or another. More recently some browsers (Safari on Mac OSX, Chrome, Firefox with config settings enabled) have adopted a different strategy and when presented with a dual stack object some clients may end up trying the connection using IPv4 first and then fall back to IPv6 if IPv4 fails or times out. If the experiment simply counts the percent of clients who prefer to connect using IPv6 in a Dual Stack scenario, then some of these users running more recent versions of the browser will not be counted. There are ways to compensate for this, including running a series of tests, and this form of approach is described at http://labs.apnic.net/measureipv6/ I personally have no knowledge if the numbers published by Google reflect the prefers to use IPv6 in dual stack mode or is capable of using IPv6 (by virtue of being able to retrieve a IPv6 only object) These days the second number is larger than the first. Geoff
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Tony Hain wrote: Tomas Podermanski wrote: Hi, It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) T. Or one could look at it as; despite 16 years of lethargy and lack of deployment by access networks, the traffic still finds a way. ;) Tony I say we better hope and pray that the network effect works as well for IPv6 as it did for IPv4. Otherwise 1% after 16 years represents nothing so much as ongoing failure. I have had approximately 0.01% interest from any user base. That would be an interesting number to watch change. Joe
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
It won't. Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable Internet connection. If you think you can do that with IPv4, you don't need to do anything (well, just plan for some budget for your CGNs). If not, better start deploying IPv6. .as On 21/11/2012 12:40, Joe Maimon wrote: I have had approximately 0.01% interest from any user base. That would be an interesting number to watch change.
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/20/2012 1:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* robust IPv6 peering and infrastructure and are ready to go, but they have not turned it on for their fiber/cable/DSL customers for reasons that are not clear to me. I keep pestering my home ISP about turning it on (since their network is now 100% DOCSIS 3), but they just seem to think I'm making up words. One can hope, though. This has partially been a vendor issue, at least for cable providers. Two of the major CMTS vendors (one starts with C, the other A) have had IPv6 related bugs in fairly recent code releases.Both of the MSOs I've worked for have had to delay IPv6 deployment while those vendors get their waterfowl properly aligned. I know we're still waiting for one vendor to get it straightened out. J
RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
We have cable broadband operations using vendor M and we're a little gun-shy because that vendor has lagged the other two with IPv6 support, and when Comcast and TimeWarner began their production IPv6 rollouts on their CMTes it wasn't with vendor M. Frank -Original Message- From: Jay [mailto:tech-li...@packet-labs.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:52 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration On 11/20/2012 1:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* robust IPv6 peering and infrastructure and are ready to go, but they have not turned it on for their fiber/cable/DSL customers for reasons that are not clear to me. I keep pestering my home ISP about turning it on (since their network is now 100% DOCSIS 3), but they just seem to think I'm making up words. One can hope, though. This has partially been a vendor issue, at least for cable providers. Two of the major CMTS vendors (one starts with C, the other A) have had IPv6 related bugs in fairly recent code releases.Both of the MSOs I've worked for have had to delay IPv6 deployment while those vendors get their waterfowl properly aligned. I know we're still waiting for one vendor to get it straightened out. J
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Jay scribbled: # On 11/20/2012 1:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: # However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* robust # IPv6 peering and infrastructure and are ready to go, but they have not # turned it on for their fiber/cable/DSL customers for reasons that are not # clear to me. # # I keep pestering my home ISP about turning it on (since their network is # now 100% DOCSIS 3), but they just seem to think I'm making up words. One # can hope, though. # # This has partially been a vendor issue, at least for cable # providers. Two of the major CMTS vendors (one starts with C, the # other A) have had IPv6 related bugs in fairly recent code releases. # Both of the MSOs I've worked for have had to delay IPv6 deployment # while those vendors get their waterfowl properly aligned. I know # we're still waiting for one vendor to get it straightened out. I know it to be a vendor issue for GPON FTTH gear, as well. At least with one major vendor (begins with a C also). They're definitely lagging. We have an IPv6 deployment in the core natively, as well built as our IPv4 infrastructure, and yet nothing on the access side. Any quarter now, I'm still hearing. Until then, we wait, and the pool of IPv4 dwindles. -- Jonathan Towne
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote: It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) And given the rate on that graph, we'll hit 2% before year-end 2013. -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o pgpfVNAIV5UfP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a number of reasons. Owen On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote: It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) And given the rate on that graph, we'll hit 2% before year-end 2013. -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Or artificially high ... On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a number of reasons. Owen On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote: It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) And given the rate on that graph, we'll hit 2% before year-end 2013. -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
APNIC labs have an interesting set of numbers on IPv6 uptake as well. http://labs.apnic.net/measureipv6/ On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Owen DeLong wrote: It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a number of reasons. Owen On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote: It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) And given the rate on that graph, we'll hit 2% before year-end 2013. -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o wfms
RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Tomas Podermanski wrote: Hi, It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) T. Or one could look at it as; despite 16 years of lethargy and lack of deployment by access networks, the traffic still finds a way. ;) Tony
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
So, I assume 6in4 tunnels like HE.net are included in the native percentage? Oliver - Oliver Garraux Check out my blog: www.GetSimpliciti.com/blog Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/olivergarraux On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wma...@ottix.net wrote: APNIC labs have an interesting set of numbers on IPv6 uptake as well. http://labs.apnic.net/measureipv6/ On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Owen DeLong wrote: It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a number of reasons. Owen On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote: It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) And given the rate on that graph, we'll hit 2% before year-end 2013. -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o wfms
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Hi, So, I assume 6in4 tunnels like HE.net are included in the native percentage? As the traffic is delivered as native traffic to Google I don't think Google can even see that there is a tunnel between them and the user. They might see a lower MTU, but to Google the traffic is native IPv6. - Sander
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: LIFE! DO YOU HEAR ME? GIVE MY CREATION... LIFE! On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote: It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) And given the rate on that graph, we'll hit 2% before year-end 2013.
