Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Mark Tinka wrote: I can very easily see why "IPv6 saves you on CG-NAT capex might not be entirely true" in cases such as these. Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4. On paper, it all adds up. With IPv6, you need 4 times more paper.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sat., Nov. 27, 2021, 13:34 Michael Thomas, wrote: > > On 11/27/21 7:46 AM, Scott Morizot wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:51 PM Oliver O'Boyle > wrote: > >> They're getting better at it, at least. They also recently added v6 >> support in their NLBs and you can get a /56 for every VPC

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 27, 2021, at 06:05 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 11/27/21 02:15, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: > >> We now have apple and fb saying ipv6 is faster than ipv4. >> >> If we can onboard Amazon, Netflix, Google and some others, then it is a done >> deal that ipv6 is indeed faster

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 27, 2021, at 06:05 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 11/27/21 02:39, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: > >> But CFOs like monetization. Was that thread about IPv6 or CFO? > > In 2021, what's the difference? > > Mark. Even in 2021, one improves network capabilities while the other

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Well, 1.4x faster is a bit of an odd metric. I presume that means that connection set up times measured were on average 1/1.4 times as long for IPv6 as they were for IPv4, but there are other possible interpretations. So really, that’s a convoluted way of saying it takes 29% less time to set up

problem with cloud services at Lightshot / app.prntscr.com.

Hello, I have a problem with cloud services at Lightshot / app.prntscr.com. Always return the CAPTCHA(Cloudflare - One more step) when I try to open the app.prntscr.com. Does anyone have any technical contact? best regards, Jacques G. Busnardo

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 17:36 Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > Well, 1.4x faster is a bit of an odd metric. I presume that means that > connection set up times measured were on average > 1/1.4 times as long for IPv6 as they were for IPv4, but there are other > possible interpretations. > > So

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 27, 2021, at 17:21 , Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 17:36 Owen DeLong via NANOG > wrote: > Well, 1.4x faster is a bit of an odd metric. I presume that means that > connection set up times measured were on average > 1/1.4 times as

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Fred Baker wrote: Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4. I disagree Try to type in raw IPv6 addresses. People are likely to use a technology originally developed because > IPv4 had the same perception problem: DNS. Here in nanog, we are talking about network

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:51 PM Oliver O'Boyle wrote: > They're getting better at it, at least. They also recently added v6 > support in their NLBs and you can get a /56 for every VPC for direct > access. I don't think they offer BYO v6 yet, as they do for v4, but it will > come. > Since we are

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 7:46 AM, Scott Morizot wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:51 PM Oliver O'Boyle wrote: They're getting better at it, at least. They also recently added v6 support in their NLBs and you can get a /56 for every VPC for direct access. I don't think they offer BYO v6 yet, as

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 12:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:07 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use iphones. Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

Might also be due to Happy Eyeballs 2 artificial IPv4 A resolution delay.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sat., Nov. 27, 2021, 10:46 Scott Morizot, wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:51 PM Oliver O'Boyle > wrote: > >> They're getting better at it, at least. They also recently added v6 >> support in their NLBs and you can get a /56 for every VPC for direct >> access. I don't think they offer BYO

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:07 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >> On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: >> Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use >> iphones. >> Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster than IPv4 > This really hits my bs

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 27, 2021, at 06:04 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 11/27/21 02:41, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> Amazon's in this case. They are monetizing their lack of v6 support >> requiring you go through all kinds of expensive hoops instead of doing the >> obvious and routing v6 packets. >> >

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:05 PM Oliver O'Boyle wrote: > On Sat., Nov. 27, 2021, 10:46 Scott Morizot, wrote: >> Since we are deploying BYO IPv6 in AWS, I can assure you they do offer it >> now. That was a blocker for us. > Wonderful! When did they start offering that? I believe it was

Re: multihoming

> On Nov 25, 2021, at 12:06 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 11/25/21 11:54 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> Christopher Morrow writes: >> >>> Also, for completeness, MP-TCP clearly does not help UDP or ICMP flows... >>> nor IPSEC nor GRE nor... >>> unless you HTTP over MP-TCP and encap

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Actually, I think it’s in the fine print here… “Connection setup is 1.4 times faster”. I can believe that NAT adds almost 40% overhead to the connection setup (3-way handshake) and some of the differences in packet handling in the fast path between v4 and v6 could contribute the small remaining

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Nov 27, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Mark Tinka wrote: > >>> On 11/27/21 17:07, Masataka Ohta wrote: >>> Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4. >> I disagree > > Try to type in raw IPv6 addresses. People are likely to use a technology originally

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 17:07, Masataka Ohta wrote: Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4. I disagree - it can be more opex if you want to run both together, but less so if you choose one; largely IPv6, but also largely IPv4 if you don't intend to be in the game for the rest

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sat., Nov. 27, 2021, 12:59 Gary Buhrmaster, wrote: > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:05 PM Oliver O'Boyle > wrote: > > > On Sat., Nov. 27, 2021, 10:46 Scott Morizot, wrote: > >> Since we are deploying BYO IPv6 in AWS, I can assure you they do offer > it now. That was a blocker for us. > > >

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 26/11/2021 22:47, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: "And when IPv6 is in use, the median connection setup is 1.4 times faster than IPv4. This is primarily due to reduced NAT usage and improved routing." Oh I believe IPv6 is faster but because of completely different reasons. Modern faster

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Actually, I think it’s in the fine print here… “Connection setup is 1.4 times faster”. I can believe that NAT adds almost 40% overhead to the connection setup (3-way handshake) and some of the differences in packet handling in the fast path

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Mark Tinka wrote: On 11/27/21 17:07, Masataka Ohta wrote: Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4. I disagree Try to type in raw IPv6 addresses. Masataka Ohta

AWS and IPv6

The Register says: AWS claims 'monumental step forward' with optional IPv6-only networks -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 207-602-1134 www.gwi.net

Looking for a contact at Citi

Hi, Apologies for the noise, shouting out to see if I can reach anyone in Citi Bank that could assist in resetting a VPN tunnel. Best Regards Ed

Re: Latency/Packet Loss on ASR1006

In the past we had packet loss issues due SIP's PLIM buffer. The following docs may provide some guidance: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-1000-series-aggregation-services-routers/200674-Throughput-issues-on-ASR1000-Series-rout.html

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 15:00, Jean St-Laurent wrote: With a kicking ass pitch Can I take your CFO :-)... Mark.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 15:47, Frank Habicht wrote: "want to buy 5 of those shiny new CGNAT boxes or only 2 ?" To which she will respond, "2 or 5, what do I make :-)?" Mark.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 16:16, Jose Luis Rodriguez wrote: Well … YMMV. We’ve been running v6 for years, and it didn’t really make a dent in spend or boxes or rate of v4 depletion. Big part of the problem in our neck of the woods is millions of v4-only terminals … as well as large customer/gov bids

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 02:41, Michael Thomas wrote: Amazon's in this case. They are monetizing their lack of v6 support requiring you go through all kinds of expensive hoops instead of doing the obvious and routing v6 packets. Individual CDN's and content providers have better control over how

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 23:47, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: With that specific line directly from Apple: "And when IPv6 is in use, the median connection setup is 1.4 times faster than IPv4. This is primarily due to reduced NAT usage and improved routing." There it is, Improved routing.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 02:15, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: We now have apple and fb saying ipv6 is faster than ipv4. If we can onboard Amazon, Netflix, Google and some others, then it is a done deal that ipv6 is indeed faster than ipv4. Hence, an easy argument to tell your CFO that you need IPv6

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 02:39, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: But CFOs like monetization. Was that thread about IPv6 or CFO? In 2021, what's the difference? Mark.

Re: Latency/Packet Loss on ASR1006

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 21:37, Tony Wicks wrote: > So many years since I have used an asr1000 but, honestly you have an esp40 in > a box with 10x10G interfaces? That’s a very underpowered processor for that > job. The ESP40 was designed for a box that would have 1G interfaces and > perhaps a

RE: Latency/Packet Loss on ASR1006

I mean a router without ASIC based forwarding like a Juniper MX or Nokia 7750. The advantage of the 1k is you don't need a services card for cgnat, but the large disadvantage is everything passes through the ESP processor and this often leads to disappointing results under load. >I'm not sure

Re: Latency/Packet Loss on ASR1006

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 at 13:32, Tony Wicks wrote: > I mean a router without ASIC based forwarding like a Juniper MX or Nokia > 7750. The advantage of the 1k is you don't need a services card for cgnat, > but the large disadvantage is everything passes through the ESP processor and > this often