Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 28, 2021, at 23:25 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 11/29/21 03:33, Masataka Ohta wrote: > >> The end result was that our DNS servers became unreachable even though they >> were still operational. This made it impossible for the rest of the internet >> to find our servers. > > So

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 28, 2021, at 23:19 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 11/29/21 00:41, scott wrote: > >> Side note: I recently tried to get /48 per customer with ARIN on repeated >> emails and they refused. We were already given an IPv6 block a while back. >> I told them I wanted to expand it so I

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 28, 2021, at 15:51 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > >> On 29 Nov 2021, at 09:41, scott wrote: >> >> >> On 11/28/2021 9:47 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >>> Why not properly assign /48s to customers and /40s to cities? >>>

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

file. Jean From: NANOG On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl Sent: November 29, 2021 4:22 AM To: NANOG Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's man. 29. nov. 2021 02.12 skrev Masataka Ohta mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> >: > The only way to truly reduce Opex at scale is a

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

man. 29. nov. 2021 02.12 skrev Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>: > > > > The only way to truly reduce Opex at scale is automation. > > Automation by what? DNS? > > Masataka Ohta > Most of our customers are provisioned by Radius.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Mark Tinka wrote: It's Mark, not me, who said: : There was a time when knowing the IP(v4) address of every interface : of every router in your network was cool. In case you missed the nuance, I haven't had to do this in over 20 years. Say it to Shane, not me. That you two can not

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/29/21 03:33, Masataka Ohta wrote: The end result was that our DNS servers became unreachable even though they were still operational. This made it impossible for the rest of the internet to find our servers. So your suggestion to map machine addresses to human-readable names is...

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/29/21 03:11, Masataka Ohta wrote: It's Mark, not me, who said: : There was a time when knowing the IP(v4) address of every interface : of every router in your network was cool. In case you missed the nuance, I haven't had to do this in over 20 years. Mark.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/29/21 00:41, scott wrote: Side note: I recently tried to get /48 per customer with ARIN on repeated emails and they refused.  We were already given an IPv6 block a while back.  I told them I wanted to expand it so I could give out a /48 per customer and that we had more than 65535

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

William Herrin wrote: But, to hear Masataka tell it, copy and paste hasn't been invented yet so we all type IP addresses by hand on our vt100 CRT terminals. You should be using so advanced technologies to input ASCII text with touch and swipe, which is very slow, even slower than cut and

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Dave Bell wrote: That facebook poorly managed their DNS to cause the recent disaster is an important evidence to support my point that DNS, so often, may not be helpful for network operations against disastrous failures, including, but not limited to, DNS failures. I don't want to wade into

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: It certainly sounds like you’ve never operated a network at scale if you think knowing the IP address of something reduces Operational expense. It's Mark, not me, who said: : There was a time when knowing the IP(v4) address of every interface : of every router

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On 29 Nov 2021, at 09:41, scott wrote: > > > On 11/28/2021 9:47 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> Why not properly assign /48s to customers and /40s to cities? >> -- > > Side note: I recently tried to get

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:18 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

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/2021 9:47 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Why not properly assign /48s to customers and /40s to cities? -- Side note: I recently tried to get /48 per customer with ARIN on repeated emails and they

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 1:28 PM Dave Bell wrote: > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 13:00, Masataka Ohta > wrote: >> That facebook poorly managed their DNS to cause the recent disaster > I don't want to wade into the middle of this argument, but has > there been more information about the recent

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 13:00, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > That facebook poorly managed their DNS to cause the recent disaster > is an important evidence to support my point that DNS, so often, may > not be helpful for network operations against disastrous failures,

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 28, 2021, at 08:55 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 11/28/21 16:20, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: > >> I like to put some servers behind that scheme. >> >> 2601::443: for https servers >> 2601::25: for MTA servers. >> 2601::993: for IMAP >> >> It gives a quick note

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 28, 2021, at 04:58 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Mark Tinka wrote: > >>> Here in nanog, we are talking about network operations, considerable >>> part of which can not rely on DNS. >> And yet Facebook were unable to access their kit to fix their recent outage >> because of it (or,

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 28, 2021, at 02:42 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 11/28/21 06:43, Masataka Ohta wrote: > >> >> Here in nanog, we are talking about network operations, considerable >> part of which can not rely on DNS. > > And yet Facebook were unable to access their kit to fix their recent

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Nov 27, 2021, at 19:37 , 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. Rarely necessary in the modern age, but really

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 16:20, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: I like to put some servers behind that scheme. 2601::443: for https servers 2601::25: for MTA servers. 2601::993: for IMAP It gives a quick note of what is that ip even though it’s ipv6 and usually non-human readable. Not

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

It certainly sounds like you’ve never operated a network at scale if you think knowing the IP address of something reduces Operational expense. The only way to truly reduce Opex at scale is automation. Shane > On Nov 28, 2021, at 9:13 AM, Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Mark Tinka wrote: > >>>

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 16:13, Masataka Ohta wrote: Certainly, but, merely because it is an easily avoided one. None of the us came out the womb knowing anything. We learned as we went along. And we keep learning, right until our death. To expect experience before it is experienced has always been

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

ISP. Do you go by zip code of the area covered or some kind of logical to help people know what is behind that ipv6 network? Jean From: NANOG On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl Sent: November 28, 2021 8:22 AM To: NANOG Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's søn. 28. nov. 2021 13.59 skrev

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Mark Tinka wrote: As a person who proposed anycast DNS servers, against which facebook operated their DNS, I'm so sure you are right. Facebook's mistake on this is an easily fixable one. Certainly, but, merely because it is an easily avoided one. We've all been there. People who really

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 15:59, Masataka Ohta wrote: It merely means you should not use MAC address based IP addresses for, at least, routers, which is partly why opex of IPv4 is low. I often wonder what Internet you use :-)... More space, only to encourage stupid idea of MAC address based addresses

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Baldur Norddahl wrote: But, with manually configured IP addresses, it is trivially easy to have a rule to assign lower part of IP addresses within a subnet for hosts and upper part for routers, which is enough to troubleshoot most network failures. 99% if not 100% of our subnets have either

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 15:33, Masataka Ohta wrote: As a person who proposed anycast DNS servers, against which facebook operated their DNS, I'm so sure you are right. Facebook's mistake on this is an easily fixable one. We've all been there. Nothing groundbreaking. All I can see is that there

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Mark Tinka wrote: That facebook poorly managed their DNS to cause the recent disaster is an important evidence to support my point that DNS, so often, may not be helpful for network operations against disastrous failures, including, but not limited to, DNS failures. Yes, but that does not

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

søn. 28. nov. 2021 13.59 skrev Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>: > > But, with manually configured IP addresses, it is trivially easy > to have a rule to assign lower part of IP addresses within a subnet > for hosts and upper part for routers, which is enough to troubleshoot >

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 14:58, Masataka Ohta wrote: Exactly. That facebook poorly managed their DNS to cause the recent disaster is an important evidence to support my point that DNS, so often, may not be helpful for network operations against disastrous failures, including, but not limited to, DNS

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Mark Tinka wrote: Here in nanog, we are talking about network operations, considerable part of which can not rely on DNS. And yet Facebook were unable to access their kit to fix their recent outage because of it (or, lack of it). Exactly. That facebook poorly managed their DNS to cause

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 14:09, Jean St-Laurent wrote: Ipv6 can be shorter than ipv4. Here is the proof: ping6 ::1 is shorter than ping 127.1 ipv6 addresses can be very small when done properly. The good news is the point of an IP address is not for its own sake. Mark.

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

Ipv6 can be shorter than ipv4. Here is the proof: ping6 ::1 is shorter than ping 127.1 ipv6 addresses can be very small when done properly. Jean -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: November 28, 2021 5:39 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 06:43, Masataka Ohta wrote: Here in nanog, we are talking about network operations, considerable part of which can not rely on DNS. And yet Facebook were unable to access their kit to fix their recent outage because of it (or, lack of it). There was a time when knowing the

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/28/21 05:37, Masataka Ohta wrote: Try to type in raw IPv6 addresses. There is DNS for that. Mark.

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 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

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

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

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

-IP-Network-Diversity.pdf I don’t know the current Apple IOS HE2 postpone delay. JC Bisecco De : NANOG De la part de Michael Thomas Envoyé : samedi 27 novembre 2021 00:20 À : Ca By Cc : nanog@nanog.org Objet : Re: IPv6 and CDN's On 11/26/21 3:11 PM, Ca By wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6

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

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

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 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 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

> 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 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

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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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

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 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: 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 11/26/21 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 02:41, 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 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 11/26/21 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 15:00, Jean St-Laurent wrote: With a kicking ass pitch Can I take your CFO :-)... Mark.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Oct 26, 2021, at 9:11 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > There has been some effort to create a governance model for the root server > system (see > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf) but I > believe it has gotten bogged down in the question of “what do you

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

ill come. Mike > > > > *From:* Michael Thomas > *Sent:* November 26, 2021 7:37 PM > *To:* Oliver O'Boyle > *Cc:* Jean St-Laurent ; Ca By > ; North American Network > Operators' Group > *Subject:* Re: IPv6 and CDN's > > > > That's a start, I guess. B

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

*From:*Michael Thomas *Sent:* November 26, 2021 7:37 PM *To:* Oliver O'Boyle *Cc:* Jean St-Laurent ; Ca By ; North American Network Operators' Group *Subject:* Re: IPv6 and CDN's That's a start, I guess. Before all they had was some weird VPN something or other. Let me guess though

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

But CFOs like monetization. Was that thread about IPv6 or CFO? From: Michael Thomas Sent: November 26, 2021 7:37 PM To: Oliver O'Boyle Cc: Jean St-Laurent ; Ca By ; North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's That's a start, I guess. Before all they had

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 4:30 PM, Oliver O'Boyle wrote: AWS has been gradually improving support and adding features. They just announced this service, which might help with adoption: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/aws-nat64-dns64-communication-ipv6-ipv4-services/ That's a start, I

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

AWS has been gradually improving support and adding features. They just announced this service, which might help with adoption: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/aws-nat64-dns64-communication-ipv6-ipv4-services/ On Fri., Nov. 26, 2021, 19:28 Michael Thomas, wrote: > > On

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 4:15 PM, Jean St-Laurent 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 for your

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

season. Who knows. You might get lucky this year. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Michael Thomas Sent: November 26, 2021 6:20 PM To: Ca By Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's On 11/26/21 3:11 PM, Ca By wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:07 PM Michael Thomas mailto:m...@mtcc.com

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 3:11 PM, Ca By wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:07 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

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:07 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* > > >

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

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*

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

26, 2021 4:44 PM To: 'Mike Hammett' ; 'Jose Luis Rodriguez' Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: IPv6 and CDN's 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 https://www.zdnet.com/article/a

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

: Mike Hammett Sent: November 26, 2021 11:56 AM To: Jose Luis Rodriguez Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Jean St-Laurent Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's Care to explain because the alternative seems pretty self-evident. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 8:16:53 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's 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 terminal

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

26, 2021, at 07:04, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: > > With a kicking ass pitch > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka > Sent: November 26, 2021 5:52 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's > > > &

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 26/11/2021 13:52, Mark Tinka wrote: On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote: Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address space. Isn't it? How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank?

RE: IPv6 and CDN's

With a kicking ass pitch -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: November 26, 2021 5:52 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote: > Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less > traffi

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote: Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address space. Isn't it? How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank? Mark.

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address space. Isn't it? 22.10.21 20:19, Mark Tinka пише: On 10/22/21 18:08, t...@pelican.org wrote: I don't think it'll ever make money, but I think it will

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 22/10/2021 17:08, t...@pelican.org wrote: > I don't think it'll ever make money, but I think it will reduce > costs. CGNAT boxes cost money, operating them costs money, dealing > with the support fallout from them costs money. Especially in the > residential space, where essentially if the

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, David Conrad wrote: Ah. Cogent. I suspect IPv6 peering policies. Somebody should bake a cake. According to https://twitter.com/Benjojo12/status/1452673637606166536 Cogent<->Google IPv6 now works. A cake is in order, but perhaps a celebratory one!? -- Mikael

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Bryan, On Oct 23, 2021, at 5:56 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: >> Excepting temporary failures, they are as far as I am aware. Why do you >> think they aren’t? > > I can't reach C, 2001:500:2::c, from many places in v6 land. My home and > secondary data center can't reach it, but my backup VM's at

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 04:20:28PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > Some of the other CDNs do have IPv6 on the authorities and > should work without issues. > > eg: > > dig -6 +trace www.akamai.com. Yes of course :-) dig -6 +trace www.fastly.com. Kind regards, Job

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 05:13:09PM +0200, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: > Hi everyone, goedenmiddag Marco! > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 01:40:42PM +0200, Marco Davids via NANOG wrote: > > We currently live in times where is actually fun to go IPv6-only. In my > > case, as in: running a FreeBSD

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Oct 23, 2021, at 1:55 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 15:17 Fred Baker wrote: >> I think you will find that there are some places in which getting IPv6 >> network service has been difficult, and

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 10/23/21 9:30 AM, Ca By wrote: >> Until IPv6 becomes provides a way to make money for the ISP, I don't see it >> being offered outside of the datacenter. > > 87% of mobiles in the usa are ipv6 > > https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ Mobile is different, v6 makes financial sense as

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 10/23/21 9:03 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Bryan, > >> Even the DNS root servers are not 100% reachable via IPv6. > > Excepting temporary failures, they are as far as I am aware. Why do you > think they aren’t? I can't reach C, 2001:500:2::c, from many places in v6 land. My home and secondary

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 15:17 Fred Baker wrote: > I think you will find that there are some places in which getting IPv6 > network service has been difficult, and as a result even IPv6- Fred, do you mean places like, all of Verizon FiOS? capable equipment is not reachable by IPv6. Those are,

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

And ipv4 I presume so there is still easier and cost less money to just go with that. From our point as an MSP no customer has a requirement that they want to be able to be reached via IPV6 so it’s still cheaper to buy up IPV4 address space and do a lot of nat than to convert all our services

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

I think you will find that there are some places in which getting IPv6 network service has been difficult, and as a result even IPv6-capable equipment is not reachable by IPv6. Those are, however, few and far between. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Oct 23,

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> On Oct 23, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Ca By wrote: > > 87% of mobiles in the usa are ipv6 > > https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ > > Agreed. When they have to connect to an IPv4 only host, they do some type of AFTR. These devices have

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 8:48 AM Bryan Fields wrote: > On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: > > Another aspect that flabbergasts me anno 2021 is how there *still* are > > BGP peering disputes between (more than two) major global internet > service > > providers in which IPv6 is

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Bryan, On Oct 22, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Bryan Fields wrote: > On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: >> Another aspect that flabbergasts me anno 2021 is how there *still* are >> BGP peering disputes between (more than two) major global internet service >> providers in which IPv6 is

  1   2   >