Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Damjan, thanks a lot, this is really interesting. - Original Message > From: Damjan Gautschi (dgautsch) > To: Stanislav Sinyagin ; swi...@swinog.ch > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:42:35 PM > Subject: RE: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) > > Sorry if this has already been sent to the list. > > http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_101408e.html > > The new uIPv6 stack requires only 0.5 KB of SRAM for data structures, a > minimum > of 1.3 KB of SRAM for buffering, and 11 KB of flash for the code. > > /tia > damjan ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Sorry if this has already been sent to the list. http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_101408e.html The new uIPv6 stack requires only 0.5 KB of SRAM for data structures, a minimum of 1.3 KB of SRAM for buffering, and 11 KB of flash for the code. /tia damjan -Original Message- From: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch] On Behalf Of Stanislav Sinyagin Sent: Montag, 2. März 2009 23:15 To: swi...@swinog.ch Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) hi Tonnerre, > From: Tonnerre Lombard > > What you can fit into 2MB flash is Linux kernel 2.4.x, plus some very > > limited number of libraries, daemons and utilities. Also, even the > > newest 2.6.x kernel is permanently popping up with ipv6 improvements > > and bugfixes. It is physically impossible to run a 2.6.x Linux system > > from 2MB flash. You can, however, run it from 4MB, and there's even > > some room for ipv6. The dd-wrt software for Linksys routers seems to > > support it, but I didn't test it. > > A slimmed down NetBSD kernel can fit into 2MB including IPv6 support. > (You have to put some work into it though.) unfortunately, NetBSD is way behind Linux in regards to new hardware support, especially for those consumer-grade devices. Most of the new reference boards come with quite poorly designed Linux BSP, and I haven't heard of any BSD support from the embedded hardware vendors. Besides, as I told already, this linux/bsd hacking is for geek enthusiasts. Consumer electronics vendors will just push new hardware to the market. > > Some of those devices are hardware-fixed to little endian > > architecture, even if the CPU allows running either BE or LE (bit > > noth both at the same time). In LE architectures, you have to swap > > bytes in every packet header in order to get the IP address or TCP > > port number. This slows down ipv6 processing significantly, as there > > are many more bytes to swap. > > That should only apply if you use arithmetic comparison functions. For > pure subnet calculations and matching, you can work on the unswapped > data (if you always compare in network byte order, which isn't hard). > There goes your bottleneck. I looked into the ipv6 linux kernel sources, and found quite a lot of hton/ntoh conversions. Also, for example, subnet mask matching is way more complex in foreign endianness :) > (Also, what kind of argument is this? IPv4 also needs to be > byteswapped.) ipv6 has many more bytes to swap in the packet header, that's the only reason :) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
of course. But I prefer to deal with some well-supported hardware, relatively fresh, and in this case, community-supported. Another example of such hardware is Beagleboard. Also my goal is not to just test the performance, but to learn the linux hacking in a real project :) - Original Message > From: Jeroen Massar > To: Stanislav Sinyagin > Cc: swi...@swinog.ch > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:28:02 PM > Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) > > Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > > as a follow-up to our old discussion, > > > > I joined the Armadeus project http://www.armadeus.com/wiki and will port > their > > BSP to Big-Endian mode. If I succeed to make sufficient amount of benchmark > tests > > of BE vs. LE performance for ipv4 and ipv6, I'll present them at the Swinog > meeting > > on April 2nd during the break. > > You could, of course, just take an NSLU2 or a WRT box, install your > flavor of Linux on it and presto. > > Especially the NSLU2's have distros that are IPv6 capable in both Big > (debian: armeb) and Little Endian (debian: arm) > > Greets, > Jeroen ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > as a follow-up to our old discussion, > > I joined the Armadeus project http://www.armadeus.com/wiki and will port > their > BSP to Big-Endian mode. If I succeed to make sufficient amount of benchmark > tests > of BE vs. LE performance for ipv4 and ipv6, I'll present them at the Swinog > meeting > on April 2nd during the break. You could, of course, just take an NSLU2 or a WRT box, install your flavor of Linux on it and presto. Especially the NSLU2's have distros that are IPv6 capable in both Big (debian: armeb) and Little Endian (debian: arm) Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
as a follow-up to our old discussion, I joined the Armadeus project http://www.armadeus.com/wiki and will port their BSP to Big-Endian mode. If I succeed to make sufficient amount of benchmark tests of BE vs. LE performance for ipv4 and ipv6, I'll present them at the Swinog meeting on April 2nd during the break. cheers, stan ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
> > Except for my laptop having been in my kitchen a couple of times, I > > haven't had much IPv6 there, I do have a couple of large corporate > > networks with several hunders of thousands of users and devices where I > > played with it 'a little bit'... and also there it works perfectly fine, i wonder which network printers are V6 enabled and even Terminalservers as well beside of the network connected timestamp system. how about manageable switches ? Roger ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Jeroen, sorry if I'm too offensive. It wasn't about you personally, but rather about the whole discussion in general. Sometimes it feels like people speak different languages :-) - Original Message > From: Jeroen Massar > To: Stanislav Sinyagin > Cc: swi...@swinog.ch > Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:26:38 PM > Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) > > Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > > Guys, this conversation turns really funny sometimes. > > One says, "I have a complex IT and network landscape with hundreds or > thousands > > devices and business applications, and ipv6 deployment is not justified by > today's needs". > > The other goes, nah, forget this crap, I tried ipv6 in my kitchen, and it > works perfectly. > > Except for my laptop having been in my kitchen a couple of times, I > haven't had much IPv6 there, I do have a couple of large corporate > networks with several hunders of thousands of users and devices where I > played with it 'a little bit'... and also there it works perfectly fine, > it just depends on what you want and how. > > Greets, > Jeroen ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > Guys, this conversation turns really funny sometimes. > One says, "I have a complex IT and network landscape with hundreds or > thousands > devices and business applications, and ipv6 deployment is not justified by > today's needs". > The other goes, nah, forget this crap, I tried ipv6 in my kitchen, and it > works perfectly. Except for my laptop having been in my kitchen a couple of times, I haven't had much IPv6 there, I do have a couple of large corporate networks with several hunders of thousands of users and devices where I played with it 'a little bit'... and also there it works perfectly fine, it just depends on what you want and how. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Guys, this conversation turns really funny sometimes. One says, "I have a complex IT and network landscape with hundreds or thousands devices and business applications, and ipv6 deployment is not justified by today's needs". The other goes, nah, forget this crap, I tried ipv6 in my kitchen, and it works perfectly. Just a side note, nothing personal :) - Original Message > From: Jeroen Massar > To: Norbert Bollow > Cc: swi...@swinog.ch; Andreas Fink > Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 11:26:59 AM > Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > [..] > > Unless there is a good solution that allows end user organizations > > (e.g. companies of any size) to run IPv6 only on some of their network > > segments, it will mean just additional pain for little or no gain to > > run IPv6 in addition to IPv4. This is both with regard to the aspect > > of cost and also from the viewpoint of complexity management from the > > perspective of the organization's IT manager. > > Most of the "Applications" that people are is Web-based nowadays. Thus > just setup an apache2, squid or other proxy that can handle v6/v4 and > you are done. Every other application that you are thinking of are > either home-grown or commercial and in most cases don't support IPv6 > yet, or will be hard to upgrade. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Norbert Bollow wrote: [..] > Unless there is a good solution that allows end user organizations > (e.g. companies of any size) to run IPv6 only on some of their network > segments, it will mean just additional pain for little or no gain to > run IPv6 in addition to IPv4. This is both with regard to the aspect > of cost and also from the viewpoint of complexity management from the > perspective of the organization's IT manager. Most of the "Applications" that people are is Web-based nowadays. Thus just setup an apache2, squid or other proxy that can handle v6/v4 and you are done. Every other application that you are thinking of are either home-grown or commercial and in most cases don't support IPv6 yet, or will be hard to upgrade. There is an easy solution for that: IPv4 + NAT, IPv6 Native. Solves all your problems. Yes, you will have to run two protocols, so what. Otherwise you will end up adding a lot of hacks in your network to handle that you don't have IPv4. Maybe in a year or 20 one can start thinking about IPv6-only networks. > It's in theory possible to upgrade all networks to dual-stack, yes, > but as long as there are no sufficiently strong incentives to use IPv6 > for production purposes, IPv6 will continue to be used for ping > traffic almost exclusively. Which is why NNTP is causing so much traffic, I guess ;) I've also a 'view' on some non-consumer networks, which clearly show that there is more than 1% of IPv6 traffic in networks, just because things get IPv6 enabled and it gets used. > Under these conditions, I don't see how I > could with good conscience recommend to my customers to make any IPv6 > related investments besides ensuring that all routers which are bought > from now on should be be dual-stack capable and performace-tested with > respect to IPv6 also and not just with respect to IPv4. And that is also the only thing that you have to do: Be prepared. For the rest, you don't HAVE to move to IPv6 yet, and especially not to an IPv6-only environment. > In summary, I don't think that the necessary incentives are in place > so far to really get the IPv6 transition going > > Hence my call to revive the Swiss IPv6 Task Force. And what would any "Task Force" do to "help" this? Write up more policy documents which nobody reads? There are a zillion of these "IPv6 Task Forces", the only thing I hear is that the conferences tend to be pretty good. The actual business result seems to be fairly minimal though (except for the companies sticking time into them and getting some customer advantages out of it) >> 2nd: IPv6 maps IPv4 addresses into a specific IPv6 prefix. So if you >> talk purely IPv6, you can address an IPv4 host by using the ::: >> prefix. > > As pointed out by Jeroen, IETF is deprecating this Already deprecated this. Past tense, already happened a long time ago. >, but apart from that, > I'd agree that it's a possible approach. Of course you'd still have > to arrange for a NAT-PT (Network Address Translator - IPv6/IPv4 > Protocol Translator) Which, if you would have read my mail a bit further would have read is also deprecated See RFC4966. IVI is the current method of solving IPv4<->IPv6. See link in other mail. [..] > Even besides the issue that using a prefix which is (no longer) It was NEVER supposed to be used on the wire. The Internet moves really fast, try to keep up at least a little bit ;) Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Andreas Fink wrote: > On 04.03.2009, at 22:57, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Andreas Fink wrote: > > > >> Currently, we will have a dual standard world for a while. so having > >> IPv4 server responding with IPv4/Ipv6 information is what we are > >> going > >> to see for a long long while. Nobody says you should NOT have IPv4. > >> Just not only. I see the future as IPv4->NAT->limited, IPv6->Native. > > > > How do you (reliably) talk with IPv4-only hosts via the internet when > > you're on an (IPv6 natively connected) IPv6-only ethernet? > > > > 1st: who says its IPv6 ONLY ethernet? IPv4 can and should stay. > Maybe through crappy NAT or proxy. Maybe only to assign DNS ;-) Maybe it hasn't been seriously raised on this list before, but I think that the "IPv6 ONLY ethernet" question is central to the discussion: Unless there is a good solution that allows end user organizations (e.g. companies of any size) to run IPv6 only on some of their network segments, it will mean just additional pain for little or no gain to run IPv6 in addition to IPv4. This is both with regard to the aspect of cost and also from the viewpoint of complexity management from the perspective of the organization's IT manager. It's in theory possible to upgrade all networks to dual-stack, yes, but as long as there are no sufficiently strong incentives to use IPv6 for production purposes, IPv6 will continue to be used for ping traffic almost exclusively. Under these conditions, I don't see how I could with good conscience recommend to my customers to make any IPv6 related investments besides ensuring that all routers which are bought from now on should be be dual-stack capable and performace-tested with respect to IPv6 also and not just with respect to IPv4. In summary, I don't think that the necessary incentives are in place so far to really get the IPv6 transition going Hence my call to revive the Swiss IPv6 Task Force. > 2nd: IPv6 maps IPv4 addresses into a specific IPv6 prefix. So if you > talk purely IPv6, you can address an IPv4 host by using the ::: > prefix. As pointed out by Jeroen, IETF is deprecating this, but apart from that, I'd agree that it's a possible approach. Of course you'd still have to arrange for a NAT-PT (Network Address Translator - IPv6/IPv4 Protocol Translator) box to be set up and operated somewhere either on the end user organisation's premises (requiring to buy both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity) or at the ISP (by means of an explicit service level agreement for the NAT-PT service). (Certainly I wouldn't think of just sending packets with ::: prefix out on the IPv6 internet and expect that to miraculously work reliably, somehow!) Still this approach has all the drawbacks of NAT, and in addition it's likely to be less reliable than plain old IPv4 NAT, because NAT-PT boxes are less likely than plain old NAT boxes to have been tested under conditions similar to actual production use. Even besides the issue that using a prefix which is (no longer) supposed to be used on the wire is IMO too brittle for production use (due to the risk of things getting broken by some software update somewhere): How can any approach of this type be better, at any point in time in the foreseeable future, than using plain old IPv4 NAT together with kludges to make authorized P2P applications etc work? Are there any other possible solutions which do not have the disadvantages of NAT as well as the disadvantage of newness? Greetings, Norbert ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 04.03.2009, at 22:57, Norbert Bollow wrote: Andreas Fink wrote: Currently, we will have a dual standard world for a while. so having IPv4 server responding with IPv4/Ipv6 information is what we are going to see for a long long while. Nobody says you should NOT have IPv4. Just not only. I see the future as IPv4->NAT->limited, IPv6->Native. How do you (reliably) talk with IPv4-only hosts via the internet when you're on an (IPv6 natively connected) IPv6-only ethernet? 1st: who says its IPv6 ONLY ethernet? IPv4 can and should stay. Maybe through crappy NAT or proxy. Maybe only to assign DNS ;-) 2nd: IPv6 maps IPv4 addresses into a specific IPv6 prefix. So if you talk purely IPv6, you can address an IPv4 host by using the ::: prefix. Andreas Fink Fink Consulting GmbH --- Tel: +41-61-332 Fax: +41-61-331 Mobile: +41-79-2457333 Address: Clarastrasse 3, 4058 Basel, Switzerland E-Mail: af...@finkconsulting.com Homepage: http://www.finkconsulting.com --- ICQ: 8239353 MSN: af...@finkconsulting.com AIM: smsrelay Skype: andreasfink Yahoo: finkconsulting SMS: +41792457333 ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Andreas Fink wrote: > Currently, we will have a dual standard world for a while. so having > IPv4 server responding with IPv4/Ipv6 information is what we are going > to see for a long long while. Nobody says you should NOT have IPv4. > Just not only. I see the future as IPv4->NAT->limited, IPv6->Native. How do you (reliably) talk with IPv4-only hosts via the internet when you're on an (IPv6 natively connected) IPv6-only ethernet? Greetings, Norbert ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 04.03.2009, at 16:05, Beat Rubischon wrote: Hello! Quite interesting discussion you have! Am 26.02.09 11:17 schrieb "Andy Davidson" unter : - There seems to be no consensus about how to serve end user addressing for ipv6 I see some open points which must be addressed in advance before IPv6 could be delivered to anyone - not only to geeks like me. Think about Cable. It's easy there - you have a modem with one or more Ethernet ports. Some RA announcements for the customers /64 and everyone is happy. Think about the advantage of "two computers when using IPv4 and an infinite amount of computers when using IPv6 for only 29.95 per month". What a motivation for the customer to use it ;-) Of course all the "Router / Blackbox Firewall" users are lost. Basically every customer gets a /64 on the ethernet. Thats the idea. ADSL is a bit more problematic. Standard ppp handles just the link layer addresses. Who should get the /64? The ppp endpoint itself or the network behind? The end user cares about what's on his Ethernet, not if PPP, ATM, HDLC or whatever is used on the wire. Basically the ADSL router has to get ONE IPv6 for the broadband side (through autoconfiguration as normally in IPv6) and be a router in the most traditional straightforward sense. NAT boxes in my view are not real routers even though a lot of vendors call them router. They are some kind of level 4 proxy "crap" someone has invented to get around IP adress usage limitations. They break in many ways if you want to do many things. Using properly routed IPv6 solves all those nice "bogous" workarounds. Apple for example goes the simple way and passes all the configuration to the user. Which configuration are you referring to? MacOS X clients do simply take router anoucement and autoconfigures everything. I have not seen any Apple ADSL router yet so I'm not sure what you mean by above statement. ppp devices won't accept RA announcements. How does Windows behave? I don't now. Where you see PPP? Ethernet is what end users will see. Or do you consider IPv6 for Dialup 56kbps modems? I'm sure PPP LCP could negotiate an IPv6 in that case for those who really want to use that. Next point: DNS. DHCPv6 is IMHO only supported by some Linux distros. Apple once again uses the DNS configured by IPv4 DHCP or manually configured ones. Well here you have to distinguish. Using a IPv6 DNS server answering on IPv6 addresses or querying IPv6 information on a IPv4 server. Currently, we will have a dual standard world for a while. so having IPv4 server responding with IPv4/Ipv6 information is what we are going to see for a long long while. Nobody says you should NOT have IPv4. Just not only. I see the future as IPv4->NAT->limited, IPv6->Native. Windows has some site wide addresses out of a deprecated space predefined (fec0:0:0:::1~3). The approach to pack DNS IPs into RA is yet too young and not standardized or even implemented. So we have still a lot of work in front of us. Not really. You can reach any IPv4 DNS from IPv6. So DHCP v4 can announce the DNS Server and the rest is simple magic. Of course there is always room for improvement. Even more work will come for small and medium business networks. Today there is a NAT gatway in front of the network and tunneling VPN for the remote workers or office interconnect. There is usually an internal DNS (Windows AD) carrying the local addresses. Everyone knows the basics and how to set up such environemnts. ... and everyone gets puzzled once NAT doesn't work. Try to use it for VoIP or just try to do MSN / ICQ filetransfers and in 90% of the cases you have issues. And if you want to use advanced layer 4 protocols such as SCTP on NAT, you will see that 99.9% of the NAT devices don't know how to handle anything besides TCP, UDP and maybe ICMP. What about the future? Route IPv6 directly to the clients? What about remote workers? Delegate the reverse and forward lookup to the internal DNS? VPN will still stay. its purpose is still the same. IPv4 or IPv6 doesnt change anything there. But you COULD use IPv6 and IPSEC directly and skip the tunneling part as IPSEC support is mandatory in IPv6. So if you access office from home, you get a secure tunnel while you access the internet, you get direct connection. Of course all those questions are answered when you operate an open network. Like universities or ISPs usually do. Or when you run an independend company network only connected by proxies. But for other usage, like SOHO users, there are still open points. For SOHO its solveable. The worst I can currently think of is that someone would have to enter a IPv6 DNS server by hand. Compared to what you have to enter into a current DSL modem, this is a snap. If the DNS issue is solved, its at the end of the day pure plug and play instead of plug and pray... _
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Claudio, On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:15:19 +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > I would be happy if those HW vendors actually manage to create a > correctly working DMA engine without stupid limitations but ethernet > chips seem to be designed by interns. Well, Brotkomm seams to have fixed the most serious problems of their DMA engine after the 5904 (or what was it) hot-standstill series... Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Stanislav, On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:14:31 -0800 (PST), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > > > What you can fit into 2MB flash is Linux kernel 2.4.x, plus some > > > very limited number of libraries, daemons and utilities. Also, > > > even the newest 2.6.x kernel is permanently popping up with ipv6 > > > improvements and bugfixes. It is physically impossible to run a > > > 2.6.x Linux system from 2MB flash. You can, however, run it from > > > 4MB, and there's even some room for ipv6. The dd-wrt software for > > > Linksys routers seems to support it, but I didn't test it. > > > > A slimmed down NetBSD kernel can fit into 2MB including IPv6 > > support. (You have to put some work into it though.) > > unfortunately, NetBSD is way behind Linux in regards to new hardware > support, especially for those consumer-grade devices. Most of the new > reference boards come with quite poorly designed Linux BSP, and I > haven't heard of any BSD support from the embedded hardware vendors. > > Besides, as I told already, this linux/bsd hacking is for geek > enthusiasts. Consumer electronics vendors will just push new hardware > to the market. You only claimed before that common IPv6 implementations are hard to fit onto a small amount of flash memory, which is not true. Also, I do see many consumer-grade devices capable of running NetBSD without any modification besides installation, but that's really off-topic. > I looked into the ipv6 linux kernel sources, and found quite a lot of > hton/ntoh conversions. Also, for example, subnet mask matching is way > more complex in foreign endianness :) I fixed part of a BGP toolchain today and didn't need to do any extensive byte order conversions on my little-endian netbook, merely because I was aware of what operations I (can) perform in network byte order and which I can't. > ipv6 has many more bytes to swap in the packet header, that's the > only reason :) Only 64 of them are ever needed. Woah there, what a coincidence that most modern CPUs come with 64-bit registers (and those will eventually end up in the embedded market was well in a couple of years. Well, not the current CPUs, don't take me by the word, I dare you. :-P). Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Hello! Quite interesting discussion you have! Am 26.02.09 11:17 schrieb "Andy Davidson" unter : > - There seems to be no consensus about how to serve end user > addressing for ipv6 I see some open points which must be addressed in advance before IPv6 could be delivered to anyone - not only to geeks like me. Think about Cable. It's easy there - you have a modem with one or more Ethernet ports. Some RA announcements for the customers /64 and everyone is happy. Think about the advantage of "two computers when using IPv4 and an infinite amount of computers when using IPv6 for only 29.95 per month". What a motivation for the customer to use it ;-) Of course all the "Router / Blackbox Firewall" users are lost. ADSL is a bit more problematic. Standard ppp handles just the link layer addresses. Who should get the /64? The ppp endpoint itself or the network behind? Apple for example goes the simple way and passes all the configuration to the user. ppp devices won't accept RA announcements. How does Windows behave? I don't now. Next point: DNS. DHCPv6 is IMHO only supported by some Linux distros. Apple once again uses the DNS configured by IPv4 DHCP or manually configured ones. Windows has some site wide addresses out of a deprecated space predefined (fec0:0:0:::1~3). The approach to pack DNS IPs into RA is yet too young and not standardized or even implemented. So we have still a lot of work in front of us. Even more work will come for small and medium business networks. Today there is a NAT gatway in front of the network and tunneling VPN for the remote workers or office interconnect. There is usually an internal DNS (Windows AD) carrying the local addresses. Everyone knows the basics and how to set up such environemnts. What about the future? Route IPv6 directly to the clients? What about remote workers? Delegate the reverse and forward lookup to the internal DNS? Of course all those questions are answered when you operate an open network. Like universities or ISPs usually do. Or when you run an independend company network only connected by proxies. But for other usage, like SOHO users, there are still open points. Beat -- \|/ Beat Rubischon ( 0^0 ) http://www.0x1b.ch/~beat/ oOO--(_)--OOo--- Meine Erlebnisse, Gedanken und Traeume: http://www.0x1b.ch/blog/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > Although it's possible to use FPGA for such operations... which leads to > another interesting > project :) This reminds me of the Liberouter project [1] which does pretty much that. François [1] http://www.liberouter.org/about_liberouter.php ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
hi Andreas, It's actually of interest to me, how much endianness affects the ipv6 processing in either a router or end device. But I couldn't find any benchmarks that would compare the same CPU in BE and LE mode under the same Linux kernel version. The only references that I found told it's faster in BE. Also by looking at the kernel sources, I clearly see where exactly it's faster. I'll probably have to do the benchmarking myself, as soon as I find a board that is easy to switch between LE and BE modes. Hardware support of checksum calculation is another topic, quite interesting, but way out of software geek's control :) Although it's possible to use FPGA for such operations... which leads to another interesting project :) From: Andreas Fink To: Stanislav Sinyagin Cc: swi...@swinog.ch Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 6:15:32 AM Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) Byteswapping of addresses and netmasks takes like a nanosecond on the systems which require swapping. So dont waste your time on that. CRC checking is way more CPU intensive on TCP but that's done nowadays in hardware on the ethernet card on modern systems and its the same for IPv4 and IPv6. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 06:15:32AM +0100, Andreas Fink wrote: > Sorry folks but now you go off the planet. > If one thinks an embedded device can't do IPv6 because of CPU load, > think again. > An Wireless access point using OpenWRT does support IPv6 and just works. > I can't remember how slow those boxes are but their speed is just enough > to cope with ethernet and wlan. > Main problem with consumer electronics is that chinese and taiwanese companies are unable to design HW or SW so they buy in some reference design with a crapy OS on them, rebrand the administration homepage and design a plastic housing for them. They don't care about features as long as the few million pieces they build are getting sold. > Byteswapping of addresses and netmasks takes like a nanosecond on the > systems which require swapping. So dont waste your time on that. CRC > checking is way more CPU intensive on TCP but that's done nowadays in > hardware on the ethernet card on modern systems and its the same for > IPv4 and IPv6. > And most hardware checksumming on modern ethernet cards is broken. Only the very last Broadcom and Intel cards include an IPv4 and IPv6 checksumming that seems works. Most other cards either don't support IPv6 or fail horribly in edge cases. I would be happy if those HW vendors actually manage to create a correctly working DMA engine without stupid limitations but ethernet chips seem to be designed by interns. -- :wq Claudio ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Besides, as I told already, this linux/bsd hacking is for geek enthusiasts. Consumer electronics vendors will just push new hardware to the market. or for Consumer electronics Vendors... There's many hardware including Linksys Acess points (some models), ADSL modems from Fritz and the like which are embedded linux even thought there isnt a big sticker saying "I'm linux"... ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Sorry folks but now you go off the planet. If one thinks an embedded device can't do IPv6 because of CPU load, think again. An Wireless access point using OpenWRT does support IPv6 and just works. I can't remember how slow those boxes are but their speed is just enough to cope with ethernet and wlan. Byteswapping of addresses and netmasks takes like a nanosecond on the systems which require swapping. So dont waste your time on that. CRC checking is way more CPU intensive on TCP but that's done nowadays in hardware on the ethernet card on modern systems and its the same for IPv4 and IPv6. On 02.03.2009, at 23:14, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: hi Tonnerre, From: Tonnerre Lombard What you can fit into 2MB flash is Linux kernel 2.4.x, plus some very limited number of libraries, daemons and utilities. Also, even the newest 2.6.x kernel is permanently popping up with ipv6 improvements and bugfixes. It is physically impossible to run a 2.6.x Linux system from 2MB flash. You can, however, run it from 4MB, and there's even some room for ipv6. The dd-wrt software for Linksys routers seems to support it, but I didn't test it. A slimmed down NetBSD kernel can fit into 2MB including IPv6 support. (You have to put some work into it though.) unfortunately, NetBSD is way behind Linux in regards to new hardware support, especially for those consumer-grade devices. Most of the new reference boards come with quite poorly designed Linux BSP, and I haven't heard of any BSD support from the embedded hardware vendors. Besides, as I told already, this linux/bsd hacking is for geek enthusiasts. Consumer electronics vendors will just push new hardware to the market. Some of those devices are hardware-fixed to little endian architecture, even if the CPU allows running either BE or LE (bit noth both at the same time). In LE architectures, you have to swap bytes in every packet header in order to get the IP address or TCP port number. This slows down ipv6 processing significantly, as there are many more bytes to swap. That should only apply if you use arithmetic comparison functions. For pure subnet calculations and matching, you can work on the unswapped data (if you always compare in network byte order, which isn't hard). There goes your bottleneck. I looked into the ipv6 linux kernel sources, and found quite a lot of hton/ntoh conversions. Also, for example, subnet mask matching is way more complex in foreign endianness :) (Also, what kind of argument is this? IPv4 also needs to be byteswapped.) ipv6 has many more bytes to swap in the packet header, that's the only reason :) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
hi Tonnerre, > From: Tonnerre Lombard > > What you can fit into 2MB flash is Linux kernel 2.4.x, plus some very > > limited number of libraries, daemons and utilities. Also, even the > > newest 2.6.x kernel is permanently popping up with ipv6 improvements > > and bugfixes. It is physically impossible to run a 2.6.x Linux system > > from 2MB flash. You can, however, run it from 4MB, and there's even > > some room for ipv6. The dd-wrt software for Linksys routers seems to > > support it, but I didn't test it. > > A slimmed down NetBSD kernel can fit into 2MB including IPv6 support. > (You have to put some work into it though.) unfortunately, NetBSD is way behind Linux in regards to new hardware support, especially for those consumer-grade devices. Most of the new reference boards come with quite poorly designed Linux BSP, and I haven't heard of any BSD support from the embedded hardware vendors. Besides, as I told already, this linux/bsd hacking is for geek enthusiasts. Consumer electronics vendors will just push new hardware to the market. > > Some of those devices are hardware-fixed to little endian > > architecture, even if the CPU allows running either BE or LE (bit > > noth both at the same time). In LE architectures, you have to swap > > bytes in every packet header in order to get the IP address or TCP > > port number. This slows down ipv6 processing significantly, as there > > are many more bytes to swap. > > That should only apply if you use arithmetic comparison functions. For > pure subnet calculations and matching, you can work on the unswapped > data (if you always compare in network byte order, which isn't hard). > There goes your bottleneck. I looked into the ipv6 linux kernel sources, and found quite a lot of hton/ntoh conversions. Also, for example, subnet mask matching is way more complex in foreign endianness :) > (Also, what kind of argument is this? IPv4 also needs to be > byteswapped.) ipv6 has many more bytes to swap in the packet header, that's the only reason :) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Stanislav, On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:53:55 -0800 (PST), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > What you can fit into 2MB flash is Linux kernel 2.4.x, plus some very > limited number of libraries, daemons and utilities. Also, even the > newest 2.6.x kernel is permanently popping up with ipv6 improvements > and bugfixes. It is physically impossible to run a 2.6.x Linux system > from 2MB flash. You can, however, run it from 4MB, and there's even > some room for ipv6. The dd-wrt software for Linksys routers seems to > support it, but I didn't test it. A slimmed down NetBSD kernel can fit into 2MB including IPv6 support. (You have to put some work into it though.) > Some of those devices are hardware-fixed to little endian > architecture, even if the CPU allows running either BE or LE (bit > noth both at the same time). In LE architectures, you have to swap > bytes in every packet header in order to get the IP address or TCP > port number. This slows down ipv6 processing significantly, as there > are many more bytes to swap. That should only apply if you use arithmetic comparison functions. For pure subnet calculations and matching, you can work on the unswapped data (if you always compare in network byte order, which isn't hard). There goes your bottleneck. (Also, what kind of argument is this? IPv4 also needs to be byteswapped.) Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
do we talk about IPV6 on internet level ? or IPV6 at homenet level ? those are 2 different things. i wouldnt use ipv6 inernally, as i own a lot of devices which are and never will be able to handle V6 as i allready told, in the past, V4 or V6 schould never ever directly connected to the net. Roger > On the Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Tonnerre Lombard blubbered: > > > Apple is gaining a lot of market share, and their products configure > > IPv6 all by themselves. Same goes for Windows Vista. Ok, for XP you > > have to install IPv6 support first, I think. > > True, true. Though, there still are some Win 2000 and even older > OS around. > > > > Besides, even if they start offering v6 today, users will not buy it, > > > because of that Interdiscount/Fust issue. Also most windows PCs and > > > home servers would need some tuning for v6. > > > > Not true, see above. > > What about all the plastic routers, firewalls and WLAN access > points? And then, gameconsoles, mobile phones, PDAs, > Squeezeboxes, etc? > > CU, Venty > > -- > Verpassen Sie nicht den neuen Hackerfunk am 07. März 2008. > Wie immer von 19:00 bis 20:00 Uhr auf Radio LoRa in Zürich. > > http://www.hackerfunk.ch/ http://www.lora.ch/ > > ___ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
- Original Message > You would be surprised how many of the "plastic boxes" support IPv6 > today or can be made to support it with a simple software update. It > might not be widely advertized yet. I played around with Embedded Linux on such devices, and I can tell two things: -- vast majority of those boxes are too limited in flash and RAM size: 4MB flash on a router is very common, sometimes it's even 2MB. 16MB RAM is common, and rarely there's 32MB. What you can fit into 2MB flash is Linux kernel 2.4.x, plus some very limited number of libraries, daemons and utilities. Also, even the newest 2.6.x kernel is permanently popping up with ipv6 improvements and bugfixes. It is physically impossible to run a 2.6.x Linux system from 2MB flash. You can, however, run it from 4MB, and there's even some room for ipv6. The dd-wrt software for Linksys routers seems to support it, but I didn't test it. Some of those devices are hardware-fixed to little endian architecture, even if the CPU allows running either BE or LE (bit noth both at the same time). In LE architectures, you have to swap bytes in every packet header in order to get the IP address or TCP port number. This slows down ipv6 processing significantly, as there are many more bytes to swap. -- as I wrote before, none of the consumer electronics vendors has given any hint of v6 compatibility on any box that I looked at in mediamarkt. Try searching for ipv6 at brack.ch or digitec.ch - you will find as many devices there. When there's demand, the vendors will come up with new hardware, and the old one will be obsolete. Cool, geeks will have tons of free hardware to play with :-) > Remember this discussion is about OFFERING IPv6. Not REQUIRING IPv6. > IPv4 will stay here for quite some time but an upgrade path has to be > established. This is a long term transition and the IPv6 standards > have lots of things in them to allow a smooth transition. And the > first steps are the backbones. Today all the good ones have IPv6 in > the core. And if not, you can use IPv4/IPv6 tunnels. Mainstream > operating systems all have IPv6 support built in. The access link is > now the last hurdle. The standards are there. You just have to plan > and execute. I thought we discussed this already. OFFERING requires significant investments at the ISP side. They will not go for it before there's a pressure, either from technology or from the customers. Consider a big enough ISP with, say, 500 routers. Apart from hardware costs, the whole planning, testing, and deployment is at the level of 2-3 thousand man-hours, or at the level of ~500k CHF. And that's only the core infrastructure. Taking ipv6 to the end user, be it Docsis or xDSL, is even more expensive, because you need to upgrade all the user-reated components, such as provisioning system, call center, billing, CPE hardware and software, etc. Are you ready to spend few hundred thousand now on something that will bring the new customers in 2014? ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 28.02.2009, at 21:52, Martin Ebnoether wrote: > On the Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Tonnerre Lombard > blubbered: > >> Apple is gaining a lot of market share, and their products configure >> IPv6 all by themselves. Same goes for Windows Vista. Ok, for XP you >> have to install IPv6 support first, I think. > > True, true. Though, there still are some Win 2000 and even older > OS around. Sure and there are some analogue TV around who can't watch HDTV. What do you do to those. The Industry of which Fust and Interdiscount etc live of have shown many times in history that they produce products of lifespans of 1-2 years. I'm sure some of you have betamax video recorders, HD-DVD players, Analogue TV's, Natel-C's etc out there which all can no longer be used. You can't have everything. But you can update your Win2000 box to run Linux (or WinXP or Vista if you have the patience). Win2000 is end of life, end of support by Microsoft. Its 9 years old by now. And I'm sure a 9 year old computer will have plenty of problems in today's Internet with highspeed video etc. >>> Besides, even if they start offering v6 today, users will not buy >>> it, >>> because of that Interdiscount/Fust issue. Also most windows PCs and >>> home servers would need some tuning for v6. >> >> Not true, see above. > > What about all the plastic routers, firewalls and WLAN access > points? And then, gameconsoles, mobile phones, PDAs, > Squeezeboxes, etc? Pure WLAN access points are ethernet bridge devices, they don't care about IPv4 or IPv6 except for their own configuration (which can stay on 192.168.x.x without a problem). Only if they do in addition NAT you get into trouble. On the other hand if you have native IPv6 on your ethernet, you don't need NAT anymore and all your NAT issues go away (why does MSN/Skype/ICQ filetransfer sometimes do not work behind NAT and sometimes it does? Why does my VoIP not work properly etc etc.) Firewalls in any case have to deal with IPv6 if you like it or not but because you skip NAT, it becomes a lot simpler as it's simply a port blocker. You would be surprised how many of the "plastic boxes" support IPv6 today or can be made to support it with a simple software update. It might not be widely advertized yet. Remember this discussion is about OFFERING IPv6. Not REQUIRING IPv6. IPv4 will stay here for quite some time but an upgrade path has to be established. This is a long term transition and the IPv6 standards have lots of things in them to allow a smooth transition. And the first steps are the backbones. Today all the good ones have IPv6 in the core. And if not, you can use IPv4/IPv6 tunnels. Mainstream operating systems all have IPv6 support built in. The access link is now the last hurdle. The standards are there. You just have to plan and execute. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On the Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Tonnerre Lombard blubbered: > Apple is gaining a lot of market share, and their products configure > IPv6 all by themselves. Same goes for Windows Vista. Ok, for XP you > have to install IPv6 support first, I think. True, true. Though, there still are some Win 2000 and even older OS around. > > Besides, even if they start offering v6 today, users will not buy it, > > because of that Interdiscount/Fust issue. Also most windows PCs and > > home servers would need some tuning for v6. > > Not true, see above. What about all the plastic routers, firewalls and WLAN access points? And then, gameconsoles, mobile phones, PDAs, Squeezeboxes, etc? CU, Venty -- Verpassen Sie nicht den neuen Hackerfunk am 07. März 2008. Wie immer von 19:00 bis 20:00 Uhr auf Radio LoRa in Zürich. http://www.hackerfunk.ch/ http://www.lora.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Hey, Fredy, On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:25:38 +0100, Fredy Kuenzler wrote: > If you don't get extra v4 space in 1000 days, don't even consider to > complain. You have been warned. Since RIPE is planning to reclaim unassigned allocations, I expect a potential heart infarct of old IPv4 routers (Cogent? UPC?) maybe even before that point in time... 277302 IPv4 network entries using 8.5M of memory 1957989 prefix entries using 59.8M of memory 313918 BGP path attribute entries using 23.9M of memory RIB using 94.3M of memory Let's see what is going to happen. Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Andy, On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:17:33 +, Andy Davidson wrote: > - There seems to be no consensus about how to serve end user > addressing for ipv6 > - Because there is no clear standard, there are no "normal" > consumer CPE that support ipv6. There's a standard. > When both of these things happen, some clever people who understand > how people buy can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that > all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE > problem will eventually go away. I'm all for "Ready for 2010" Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Stanislav, On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:09:13 -0800 (PST), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > In mass-market xDSL, there's no common standard or at least design > reference for CPE provisioning. Therefore we can't even start the > design work. IP6CP exists and is standardized. Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Stanislav, On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:26:34 -0800 (PST), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > The fact that Andreas or Tonnere is able to configure ipv6 at home > does not create a business case. Go look at your nearest > Interdiscount or Fust shop -- how many of the consumer > routers/firewalls/modems would support ipv6? How many of the shop > salesmen would ever hear such word? Apple is gaining a lot of market share, and their products configure IPv6 all by themselves. Same goes for Windows Vista. Ok, for XP you have to install IPv6 support first, I think. IPv6 configuration nowadays involves plugging a cable or pairing with your wireless. If you can't do that, you also can't access your IPv4 network. (see also http://notalwaysright.com/next-up-watching-paint-dry/1268 ) > Besides, even if they start offering v6 today, users will not buy it, > because of that Interdiscount/Fust issue. Also most windows PCs and > home servers would need some tuning for v6. Not true, see above. Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Stanislav, On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:43:29 -0800 (PST), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > so, what? I'm not telling that ipv6 is impossible, I'm just telling > that there's no standard as such. And none of the big telcos would > afford building a custom solution: everyone waits for standards to be > published. No, the standards are there. Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
if it were so easy to do with the stickers :)) The thing is, there are almost no consumer electronics products which are ipv6 ready. The manufacturing industry is not yet ready, and it will take another few years before they start delivering something because now there's no user demand. same story as with ISP. From: Andreas Fink To: swi...@swinog.ch Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:29:59 AM Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) Compare IPv4 / IPv6 discussion to a end user who wants to buy a TV a few years ago. Does he buy an analog TV or a Digital Full HDTV flat screen? He can use both to view TV but in a few years, he can't watch analog TV anymore. So the user invests into the digital one even its more expensive because he wants something future proof. Even though most ISP's have noticed IPv6 and the reason why, I agree that the shops have not put IPv6 ready stickers on the products. Key point is that end users are NOT AWARE YET. And there comes the catch. If even the ISP is not supporting IPv6, the end user would definitively not care. But if the ISP tells him, hey with me you can also surf on IPv6 and that's what the future is going to be, the customer will buy a IPv6 capable device if it costs 10CHF more because he believes if the ISP's advertizes this feature, it must be important for the future. The ISP is the expert... On 26.02.2009, at 23:27, ro...@mgz.ch wrote: Am 26 Feb 2009 um 22:01 hat Peter Rohrer geschrieben: Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 17:34 schrieb Leo Vegoda: On 26/02/2009 2:32, "ro...@mgz.ch" wrote: very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. 3.0 there is the promise of faster connections, which may well be a selling point to consumers. ipV6 deos have definitely more overhaed than ipv4 ...think about that, but doesnt matter. You dont have to convince the costumer about ipv6 with features .. the only thing is in the near future he will be offline, because the old system will be end of life soon. Thats an argument every non technical client will understand immediately. Not to panik them, but if they buy something new .. thats the decission. There is no need of marketing like windows xp is increasing the speed and productivity. the same vista... Its just a lie, i didnt see any increase of performance, and on the same hardware xp is definitely slower than w2k but the big marketing lie got them billions .. and some people recognised this lie. They will just talking bad about the isp if they find out ipv6 have nothing to do with speed.. and they will .. believe me Roger Well, given the actual situation in switzerland, people would probably be willing to upgrade to IPv6 if it would increase the quality of the customer service and billing department of their cable provider. Ok, you could promise them that they actually get the speed they are billed for, that would be a good reason to have IPv6. *SCNR* Beside this, many people probably don't want more speed, they want to pay less. Greetings, Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Compare IPv4 / IPv6 discussion to a end user who wants to buy a TV a few years ago. Does he buy an analog TV or a Digital Full HDTV flat screen? He can use both to view TV but in a few years, he can't watch analog TV anymore. So the user invests into the digital one even its more expensive because he wants something future proof. Even though most ISP's have noticed IPv6 and the reason why, I agree that the shops have not put IPv6 ready stickers on the products. Key point is that end users are NOT AWARE YET. And there comes the catch. If even the ISP is not supporting IPv6, the end user would definitively not care. But if the ISP tells him, hey with me you can also surf on IPv6 and that's what the future is going to be, the customer will buy a IPv6 capable device if it costs 10CHF more because he believes if the ISP's advertizes this feature, it must be important for the future. The ISP is the expert... On 26.02.2009, at 23:27, ro...@mgz.ch wrote: Am 26 Feb 2009 um 22:01 hat Peter Rohrer geschrieben: Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 17:34 schrieb Leo Vegoda: On 26/02/2009 2:32, "ro...@mgz.ch" wrote: very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. 3.0 there is the promise of faster connections, which may well be a selling point to consumers. ipV6 deos have definitely more overhaed than ipv4 ...think about that, but doesnt matter. You dont have to convince the costumer about ipv6 with features .. the only thing is in the near future he will be offline, because the old system will be end of life soon. Thats an argument every non technical client will understand immediately. Not to panik them, but if they buy something new .. thats the decission. There is no need of marketing like windows xp is increasing the speed and productivity. the same vista... Its just a lie, i didnt see any increase of performance, and on the same hardware xp is definitely slower than w2k but the big marketing lie got them billions .. and some people recognised this lie. They will just talking bad about the isp if they find out ipv6 have nothing to do with speed.. and they will .. believe me Roger Well, given the actual situation in switzerland, people would probably be willing to upgrade to IPv6 if it would increase the quality of the customer service and billing department of their cable provider. Ok, you could promise them that they actually get the speed they are billed for, that would be a good reason to have IPv6. *SCNR* Beside this, many people probably don't want more speed, they want to pay less. Greetings, Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Am 26 Feb 2009 um 22:01 hat Peter Rohrer geschrieben: > Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 17:34 schrieb Leo Vegoda: > > On 26/02/2009 2:32, "ro...@mgz.ch" wrote: > > > very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker > > > > Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. > > 3.0 there is the promise of faster connections, which may well be a > > selling point to consumers. ipV6 deos have definitely more overhaed than ipv4 ...think about that, but doesnt matter. You dont have to convince the costumer about ipv6 with features .. the only thing is in the near future he will be offline, because the old system will be end of life soon. Thats an argument every non technical client will understand immediately. Not to panik them, but if they buy something new .. thats the decission. There is no need of marketing like windows xp is increasing the speed and productivity. the same vista... Its just a lie, i didnt see any increase of performance, and on the same hardware xp is definitely slower than w2k but the big marketing lie got them billions .. and some people recognised this lie. They will just talking bad about the isp if they find out ipv6 have nothing to do with speed.. and they will .. believe me Roger > > > Well, given the actual situation in switzerland, people would probably > be willing to upgrade to IPv6 if it would increase the quality of the > customer service and billing department of their cable provider. > Ok, you could promise them that they actually get the speed they are > billed for, that would be a good reason to have IPv6. *SCNR* > Beside this, many people probably don't want more speed, they want to > pay less. > > Greetings, > Peter > > ___ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 17:34 schrieb Leo Vegoda: > On 26/02/2009 2:32, "ro...@mgz.ch" wrote: > > very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker > > Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. People will > want to know what what "new" features they'll get on the "new" > Internet. Will it be faster? Will there be new content? With DOCSIS > 3.0 there is the promise of faster connections, which may well be a > selling point to consumers. > Well, given the actual situation in switzerland, people would probably be willing to upgrade to IPv6 if it would increase the quality of the customer service and billing department of their cable provider. Ok, you could promise them that they actually get the speed they are billed for, that would be a good reason to have IPv6. *SCNR* Beside this, many people probably don't want more speed, they want to pay less. Greetings, Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Out of curiosity, I browsed through the network-enabled products at Mediamarkt. Routers, firewalls, ADSL modems, print servers, web cameras -- none has listed ipv6 in their feature lists. Not even "ipv6 upgradable". So, basically, ipv6 is nonexistent :-) my not so old laser printer does not have such option either... - Original Message > From: "ro...@mgz.ch" > To: swi...@swinog.ch > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:45:20 PM > Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) > > in my oppinion your thinking the wrong way .. > ipv6 is not a feature to sell.. its a change which have to be done and now > the > client standing in front of the router in interdiscount guess he will buy ? > the > box with the new internet sticker or the one wich doesnt have it ? > He is not able to read and understand a feature list on every box to choose > the right one. > he have to see .. ready or not. He decide for the wrong solution he have to > buy new hardware again. > > One day i hope not so far, the enduser have to pay an additional fee to > getting IPV4 on his connection. > But first all have to be ready to maybe getting that happen. > > > Roger > > > > > On 26/02/2009 2:32, "ro...@mgz.ch" wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > >> can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that > > >> all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE > > >> problem will eventually go away. > > >> > > >> .. In my opinion. :-) > > > > [...] > > > > > very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker > > > > Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. People will want > > to know what what "new" features they'll get on the "new" Internet. Will it > > be faster? Will there be new content? With DOCSIS 3.0 there is the promise > > of faster connections, which may well be a selling point to consumers. I am > > not sure what IPv6 feature will sell a product to an ordinary consumer. I > > don't think the new features are easy to convey in a sound-bite or a > > sticker. > > > > That doesn't mean that they aren't valuable, just that they aren't easy to > > market. And that's why the way DOCSIS 3.0 bundles IPv6 in with a whole bunch > > of features attractive to ordinary consumers is so good. > > > > Regards, > > > > Leo > > > > > > ___ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Hi Steven, On 26/02/2009 8:53, "Steven Glogger" wrote: [...] > well, actually - this discussion about DOCSIS3 and IPv6 is like > discussion about apples and dentists. two different things ,-) > but i fully agree: if you want to introduce 'new technologies' like ipv6 > you have to give them some goodies and stuff like 'what's better'. > but maybe we have to come away from this thinking - because when we have > no more ipv4 we have to use ipv6. I think I basically agree. For me, the issue is that IPv6 isn't a feature that end users should ever need to notice and so I think a useful way of getting it deployed is to bundle it along with features that users will pay extra for, like faster downloads. [...] > but anyway, just seen you're working at icann ,-) if you want to provide > some update to the swiss ISP's we would gladly reserve some time at one > of our next swinog meetings. we had last time RIPE NCC with us and had a > lot of good discussions during the session and social event ,-) I'd love to come to a future meeting and hope that I could contribute something interesting. When is the next meeting scheduled? Thanks, Leo ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Am 26 Feb 2009 um 17:53 hat Steven Glogger geschrieben: > if you want to introduce 'new technologies' like ipv6 > you have to give them some goodies and stuff like 'what's better'. > but maybe we have to come away from this thinking - because when we have > no more ipv4 we have to use ipv6. Exactly, he is buying the feature "it will work in the future" other feature to announce will be just confuse and raise expectations Another Feature would be more Secure download of Video and your favorite MP3 from some "Friends" :) Roger ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
in my oppinion your thinking the wrong way .. ipv6 is not a feature to sell.. its a change which have to be done and now the client standing in front of the router in interdiscount guess he will buy ? the box with the new internet sticker or the one wich doesnt have it ? He is not able to read and understand a feature list on every box to choose the right one. he have to see .. ready or not. He decide for the wrong solution he have to buy new hardware again. One day i hope not so far, the enduser have to pay an additional fee to getting IPV4 on his connection. But first all have to be ready to maybe getting that happen. Roger > On 26/02/2009 2:32, "ro...@mgz.ch" wrote: > > [...] > > >> can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that > >> all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE > >> problem will eventually go away. > >> > >> .. In my opinion. :-) > > [...] > > > very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker > > Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. People will want > to know what what "new" features they'll get on the "new" Internet. Will it > be faster? Will there be new content? With DOCSIS 3.0 there is the promise > of faster connections, which may well be a selling point to consumers. I am > not sure what IPv6 feature will sell a product to an ordinary consumer. I > don't think the new features are easy to convey in a sound-bite or a > sticker. > > That doesn't mean that they aren't valuable, just that they aren't easy to > market. And that's why the way DOCSIS 3.0 bundles IPv6 in with a whole bunch > of features attractive to ordinary consumers is so good. > > Regards, > > Leo > ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 26 Feb 2009, at 16:34, Leo Vegoda wrote: > Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. People > will want > to know what what "new" features they'll get on the "new" Internet. > Will it > be faster? Will there be new content? With DOCSIS 3.0 there is the > promise > of faster connections, which may well be a selling point to > consumers. I am > not sure what IPv6 feature will sell a product to an ordinary > consumer. I > don't think the new features are easy to convey in a sound-bite or a > sticker. I think you over-estimate the average consumer, and under-estimate the ability for the major stores to push the things with the largest amount of stickers to the average end-user. Andy ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
leo, > Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. People will want > to know what what "new" features they'll get on the "new" Internet. Will it > be faster? Will there be new content? With DOCSIS 3.0 there is the promise > of faster connections, which may well be a selling point to consumers. I am > not sure what IPv6 feature will sell a product to an ordinary consumer. I > don't think the new features are easy to convey in a sound-bite or a > sticker. > well, actually - this discussion about DOCSIS3 and IPv6 is like discussion about apples and dentists. two different things ,-) but i fully agree: if you want to introduce 'new technologies' like ipv6 you have to give them some goodies and stuff like 'what's better'. but maybe we have to come away from this thinking - because when we have no more ipv4 we have to use ipv6. i think it's time for the providers to just build up the basic services which are ipv6 aware so we can use it when we want to start. but todays problem is: almost no one is offering _all_ services on ipv4 AND ipv6. there's no need, there's no pressure. this somehow reminds me of the Y2K problem: let's see what will happen ,-) but anyway, just seen you're working at icann ,-) if you want to provide some update to the swiss ISP's we would gladly reserve some time at one of our next swinog meetings. we had last time RIPE NCC with us and had a lot of good discussions during the session and social event ,-) -steven ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 26/02/2009 2:32, "ro...@mgz.ch" wrote: [...] >> can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that >> all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE >> problem will eventually go away. >> >> .. In my opinion. :-) [...] > very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker Just labelling things as "new" doesn't mean they'll sell. People will want to know what what "new" features they'll get on the "new" Internet. Will it be faster? Will there be new content? With DOCSIS 3.0 there is the promise of faster connections, which may well be a selling point to consumers. I am not sure what IPv6 feature will sell a product to an ordinary consumer. I don't think the new features are easy to convey in a sound-bite or a sticker. That doesn't mean that they aren't valuable, just that they aren't easy to market. And that's why the way DOCSIS 3.0 bundles IPv6 in with a whole bunch of features attractive to ordinary consumers is so good. Regards, Leo ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 26 Feb 2009, at 12:09, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > At home, 80% of computers are not ipv6 ready, and 99% of users have > no idea what it is. > In mass-market hardware shops, ipv6 is terra incognita. They don't know what ipv4 is. The users just want the services. The role of the ISP and CPE is to enable access to services. It should be transparent. ... again, in my opinion :-) Andy ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 26.02.2009, at 14:22, Claudio Jeker wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:07:12PM +0100, Andreas Fink wrote: On 26.02.2009, at 11:27, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: ... For what its worth my router tells me this: IPv6 routes: 1'577 entries, 1'194 AS numbers IPv4 routes: 274'504 Ientries, 30'488 AS numbers If the wold would be all IPv6, our routers would need 10 times less memory ;-) Do you think that if IPv6 is used worldwide the number of ASs would be smaller then today? The same question is also true for the number of networks. This wont change much I guess. The "political" boundaries which exist in autonomous systems will stay the same. Maybe some multihomed customers would instead become dual homed and would not need an AS number. This is the biggest lie of IPv6. The routing table will not get smaller and will gain the same exponential growth that IPv4 has now. This is not true. ISP's today own dozens of subnets. The average AS number announces 8 routes. With IPv6 most of those who do announce dozens of nets would only announce one prefix. If the world would be all IPv6 you would need at least 4 times as much memory on your routes. Most probably you need to replace most because their CAMs are to small or the ASICs do not support IPv6. The current routers out there have no problem with IPv6. If they would have such issues, they have even bigger issues with IPv4 as it is currently. IPv6 has been designed from the ground up to allow easy routing in hardware. One of the reasons why IPv6 headers are always on 4 byte boundaries. And by the time we have all IPv6 ranges, routers with 4 times as much memory are widely available. My 10 year old Cisco7206VXR can still easily cope with a full routing table. About the size reduction / increase, here's an example: Below you see the BGP4 routing table of Swisscom (AS3303) for all routes ending with AS3303 (which excludes multihomed clients): This routing table has 147 entries. In IPv6 it would have ONE entry because that ONE subnet gives by far enough space. Also if a subnet would been taken over from another ISP (merger etc), renumbering is changing prefixes on routers but not changing all hosts in a subnet. So way easier. Also the prefix can be replaced 1:1. This is not possible in IPv4 and renumbering is a major hassle in that case (which is why no one does it) because the size constraints required to use optimal size allocation and over time what's optimal changes. IPv6 does not have that burden. This example shows a 147 : 1 tradeoff in routing table entries. Assuming a table entry takes 4 times as much space (which I dont think because an entry holds more than just the IP... so it will be 24 bytes longer, not 4 times as big). you are still saving a factor of 1:36. See for your self *> 77.72.128.0/21 *> 78.110.128.0/20 *> 91.199.186.0/24 *> 91.208.130.0/24 *> 134.146.200.0/23 *> 138.187.128.0/18 *> 138.188.0.0 *> 138.190.0.0 *> 145.234.0.0 *> 145.250.128.0/17 *> 146.109.0.0 *> 146.159.0.0 *> 156.25.248.0/21 *> 156.106.0.0 *> 161.78.0.0 *> 163.168.0.0 *> 164.128.0.0 *> 192.53.104.0 *> 192.83.223.0 *> 192.102.95.0 *> 193.5.0.0 *> 193.5.3.0 *> 193.5.4.0/23 *> 193.5.38.0 *> 193.5.59.0 *> 193.5.61.0 *> 193.5.67.0 *> 193.5.224.0/20 *> 193.8.145.0 *> 193.8.167.0 *> 193.8.196.0 *> 193.8.198.0/23 *> 193.16.241.0 *> 193.47.232.0 *> 193.72.79.0 *> 193.73.106.0/23 *> 193.73.208.0 *> 193.134.32.0/22 *> 193.134.36.0/22 *> 193.134.131.0 *> 193.134.206.0 *> 193.134.210.0 *> 193.134.214.0 *> 193.134.248.0 *> 193.135.0.0/23 *> 193.135.46.0 *> 193.135.108.0/23 *> 193.135.128.0/22 *> 193.135.132.0 *> 193.135.143.0 *> 193.135.144.0/23 *> 193.135.156.0 *> 193.135.173.0 *> 193.135.214.0/23 *> 193.135.216.0/23 *> 193.135.218.0 *> 193.135.219.0 *> 193.135.255.0 *> 193.201.122.0/23 *> 193.222.64.0/19 *> 193.223.68.0 *> 193.223.112.0/20 *> 193.223.224.0/20 *> 193.246.0.0/23 *> 193.246.16.0/21 *> 193.246.48.0/23 *> 193.246.50.0 *> 193.246.56.0 *> 193.246.57.0 *> 193.246.62.0/23 *> 193.246.99.0 *> 193.246.100.0 *> 193.246.104.0 *> 193.246.113.0 *> 193.246.122.0 *> 193.246.127.0 *> 193.246.205.0 *> 193.246.246.0 *> 193.246.248.0/22 *> 193.246.252.0 *> 193.246.254.0 *> 193.247.36.0/22 *> 193.247.40.0 *> 193.247.44.0/22 *> 193.247.48.0/20 *> 193.247.86.0 *> 193.247.128.0/22 *> 193.247.132.0 *> 193.247.151.0 *> 193.247.154.0 *> 193.247.217.0 *> 193.247.224.0/21 *> 193.247.244.0/23 *> 193.247.247.0 *> 193.247.250.0 *> 194.6.160.0/19 *> 194.11.128.0/23 *> 194.11.144.0/21 *> 194.11.166.0/23 *> 194.11.223.0 *> 194.35.252.0 *> 194.40.244.0 *> 194.56.0.0 *> 194.56.3.0 *> 194.56.4.0 *> 194.56.127.0 *> 194.56.234.0 *> 194.93.112.0/22 *> 194.124.209.0 *> 194.124.232.0 *> 194.124.233.0 *> 194.124.242.0/23 *> 194.147.52.0/22 *> 194.147.96.0 *> 194.147.134.0/23 *> 194.169.219.0 *> 194.191.65.0 *> 194.209.0.0/16 *> 194.209.86.0/23 *> 195.8.108.0 *> 195.35.121.0 *> 195.47.231.0 *> 195.47.245.0 *> 195.65.0.0/16 *> 195.144.32.0/19 *>
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:07:12PM +0100, Andreas Fink wrote: > > On 26.02.2009, at 11:27, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > ... > For what its worth my router tells me this: > > IPv6 routes: 1'577 entries, 1'194 AS numbers > IPv4 routes: 274'504 Ientries, 30'488 AS numbers > > If the wold would be all IPv6, our routers would need 10 times less > memory ;-) > Do you think that if IPv6 is used worldwide the number of ASs would be smaller then today? The same question is also true for the number of networks. This is the biggest lie of IPv6. The routing table will not get smaller and will gain the same exponential growth that IPv4 has now. If the world would be all IPv6 you would need at least 4 times as much memory on your routes. Most probably you need to replace most because their CAMs are to small or the ASICs do not support IPv6. -- :wq Claudio ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
> > can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that > all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE > problem will eventually go away. > > .. In my opinion. :-) > > Andy very good idea .. "supports the new internet" sticker but i getting worried when i think of billion of ipv4 hardware like cpe, nat router .. which will be useless in a timespan of a few years. To not push the client to threw it to the household litter maybe there could be an discount on the new IPV6 device in exchange to the old HW The shop takes care the old hardware goes to the right place. Roger ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Andreas, please roll back and remember where we started. You tell me of some single cases where the user was convinced that ipv6 is not scary. I'm telling you that the mass market is not ready, and it will take few years before you see any change. What we have today is: In DOCSIS installations, ipv6 requires hardware and software upgrade (or replacement). In mass-market xDSL, there's no common standard or at least design reference for CPE provisioning. Therefore we can't even start the design work. At home, 80% of computers are not ipv6 ready, and 99% of users have no idea what it is. In mass-market hardware shops, ipv6 is terra incognita. cheers, stan P.S. you don't need to explain me how ipv6 is good, I'm still keeping my ccie status up to date :) From: Andreas Fink [HTML skipped] ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 26.02.2009, at 11:27, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: From: Andreas Fink Windows XP is end of life... forgot? so what? 50 to 80% of users still use it. On 2-4 years old hardware. Try telling them that they have to buy new computers :) why do you care ? They simply stay on IPv4. If they have vista, they can profit of IPv6. Nobody asks to REPLACE IPv4 with IPv6. Its a migration. And you gotta start sometime with it. tell it to Swisscom/Sunrise/Cablecom -- or just any real ISP with real private users :-) Believe me. As I've been an ISP since 1994 in the early days where you had to tell people how to configure Trumpet Winsock on windows 3.11, I know very well that support IS a hassle. If you get it right however, you get very loyal customers long term. Swisscom / Sunrise / Cablecom are not the best examples in this even though Swisscom has improved lately, Cablecom is still far away from customer friendly in my eyes. But they have the de facto "monopoly" on cable internet. So often customers have no choice and get abused because of that. For what its worth my router tells me this: IPv6 routes: 1'577 entries, 1'194 AS numbers IPv4 routes: 274'504 Ientries, 30'488 AS numbers If the wold would be all IPv6, our routers would need 10 times less memory ;-) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Nicolas Strina wrote: > Ok the hw is quite important but > well .. I see lots of CPE able to do the job even on DSL. > Nico, which manufacturers do you have in mind? /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (4.2°C) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:52:50AM -0800, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > > If you don't get extra v4 space in 1000 days, don't even consider to > > complain. You have been warned. > > > > I would very much worry, if my most important resource to maintain my > > business would dry out in less than 1000 days. That's why we fixed IPv6 > > in AS13030. > > Fredy, how many residential customers do you have and how many of them > have moved to pure ipv6? > This is a very stupid question. There is no such thing as pure IPv6 and it will most probably never be. The world would be much better and IPv6 would probably find a broader acceptance if all the IPv6 evangelist would step back and let the real world chop of all the crap out of IPv6 (especially the political crap) and make it usable. -- :wq Claudio ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Hi to all I have been following this discussion and I'd like to jump in with just a little detail which may change the way users take on IPv6 for 2010. Windows 7 includes a service which is called direct access and it ONLY works with IPv6. Pretty cool stuff. Many of my customers, small and large, have stayed with XP and they will move to Windows7 pretty soon when it's released. And so might home users do, because Windows7 is WAY better than Vista. Times are achanging. I do believe that providers who do their job in the background while there is time and no pressure will be the winners in the long term. So for me this means I have to update my books to get ready for the wave ;-) Cheers Silvia Hagen Nicolas Strina writes: > Hello, > > It's also your job to help your customers to migrate to v6 .. Currently thats > what i'm doing and i see more and more > people asking for v4/v6 access at once .. Works fine it's just a question of > "communication" to your customers. Ok the > hw is quite important but well .. I see lots of CPE able to do the job even > on DSL. > > Cu, > > Nico > >> On 26 Feb 2009, at 08:50, Andreas Fink wrote: >>> Sorry but "most windows PCs and home servers would need some tuning >>> for v6" is just WRONG. >>> If you have a proper configured IPv6 router and you plug a MacOS X >>> or Linux box, they get IPv6 addresses automatically and are >>> connected. This is part of the beauty of IPv6 to have >>> autoconfiguration. >> >> I agree with you, because I have a very good router at home, and Mac >> OSX - and as you say it just works. But >> >> - There seems to be no consensus about how to serve end user >> addressing for ipv6 >> - Because there is no clear standard, there are no "normal" consumer >> CPE that support ipv6. >> >> When both of these things happen, some clever people who understand >> how people buy can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that >> all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE >> problem will eventually go away. >> >> .. In my opinion. :-) >> >> Andy >> >> ___ >> swinog mailing list >> swinog@lists.swinog.ch >> http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog >> > > Sunny Connection AG + 41 44 887 62 10 http://www.sunny.ch Email shagen at sunny.ch * Our Website is dual-stack. You can access it with IPv4 and IPv6. * ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Stanislav Sinyagin schrieb: >> If you don't get extra v4 space in 1000 days, don't even consider >> to complain. You have been warned. >> >> I would very much worry, if my most important resource to maintain >> my business would dry out in less than 1000 days. That's why we >> fixed IPv6 in AS13030. > > Fredy, how many residential customers do you have and how many of > them have moved to pure ipv6? Noone moves to pure IPv6 these days. I don't consider this question serious. Init7 carries ~60 v6 prefixes via BGP and has ~20 /48 customer assignments, mainly to colocation and carrier ethernet customers. This is not too much yet, but it's a start. Regarding residentials (xDSL via BBCS) - we have an open task, and we will deliver native v6 "soon(TM)" ... F. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
> From: Andreas Fink > Windows XP is end of life... forgot? so what? 50 to 80% of users still use it. On 2-4 years old hardware. Try telling them that they have to buy new computers :) > and Zyxel or D-Link is dead end. IPv6 is not for everyone right now but a > good > part will want to use it. > > > and he does not know what an IP address is. Usually such users bring 80% > > of ISP's income, and the ISP will rather keep them happy :) > > it brings 80% of the income and 95% of the support cost. > So make yourself happy by saving it... > > Whatever, IPv6 might not be for you. Your customers will go away one day. Not > immediately but longer term. And by that time others have picked up your > business. tell it to Swisscom/Sunrise/Cablecom -- or just any real ISP with real private users :-) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Hello, It's also your job to help your customers to migrate to v6 .. Currently thats what i'm doing and i see more and more people asking for v4/v6 access at once .. Works fine it's just a question of "communication" to your customers. Ok the hw is quite important but well .. I see lots of CPE able to do the job even on DSL. Cu, Nico > On 26 Feb 2009, at 08:50, Andreas Fink wrote: >> Sorry but "most windows PCs and home servers would need some tuning >> for v6" is just WRONG. >> If you have a proper configured IPv6 router and you plug a MacOS X >> or Linux box, they get IPv6 addresses automatically and are >> connected. This is part of the beauty of IPv6 to have >> autoconfiguration. > > I agree with you, because I have a very good router at home, and Mac > OSX - and as you say it just works. But > > - There seems to be no consensus about how to serve end user > addressing for ipv6 > - Because there is no clear standard, there are no "normal" consumer > CPE that support ipv6. > > When both of these things happen, some clever people who understand > how people buy can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that > all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE > problem will eventually go away. > > .. In my opinion. :-) > > Andy > > ___ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Am 26 Feb 2009 um 10:25 hat Fredy Kuenzler geschrieben: > Stanislav Sinyagin schrieb: hardware is not ready, and the times wehre you install PPPoE on a single client are long time gone. what to do with the famous family webcam, or the X-Box of the son ? so only solution is to have a box wich converts V6 to V4 well again there is a solution, buy another PC and use that as a nat/conversion box. Nat router before 15W new PC 120W is that the way we go to an green future ? Or connect straigth all devices to the ISP, thats even a go back to the oldfirewall/natless times in home envirnonment. that would be a push forward again for malware. opens new way for some "bundestrojaner" ;) > > The fact that Andreas or Tonnere is able to configure ipv6 at home > > does not create a business case. most XP-PC are having IPV6 allready installed with all his funy virtual networkdevices. if i ask, allways got the answer, i dont know what that is, i just activated it because its there. > If you don't get extra v4 space in 1000 days, don't even consider to > complain. You have been warned. what about all the 18 A class net not in use ? How to deassign large Company b class network which they since years only use internally ? UBS, CS to only mention the largest ones think about the mil network as well ... a shame and an waste of IP-Space. i'm absolutely not against IPV6 but now, to push the enduser to use it with all his hazzle is the wrong way, We have enough Banana products on the world, where the users suffering while waiting for upgrade x-y to get it working better. . users need an all over solution. working and plug and play. in the IPV6 case the priority is different than in other cases. not the request of the client will lead to more IPV6 Enabled products, it have to be ready and implemented to getting users attention. that we have to accept. . its not a feature . its a must to go for IPV6. It have nothing to do with marketing .. sorry to dissapoint the marketing guys ;) Roger ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 26 Feb 2009, at 08:50, Andreas Fink wrote: > Sorry but "most windows PCs and home servers would need some tuning > for v6" is just WRONG. > If you have a proper configured IPv6 router and you plug a MacOS X > or Linux box, they get IPv6 addresses automatically and are > connected. This is part of the beauty of IPv6 to have > autoconfiguration. I agree with you, because I have a very good router at home, and Mac OSX - and as you say it just works. But - There seems to be no consensus about how to serve end user addressing for ipv6 - Because there is no clear standard, there are no "normal" consumer CPE that support ipv6. When both of these things happen, some clever people who understand how people buy can invent a 'made for the new internet' sticker that all of the CPE will want to carry on their packaging, and the CPE problem will eventually go away. .. In my opinion. :-) Andy ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 26.02.2009, at 10:00, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > > Andreas, you forgot one thing: you are not a user (although replying > in HTML to a > techie mailing list is a typical user behavior :-) > > A typical user has windows XP at home, he buys cheap zyxel or D-link > hardware, Windows XP is end of life... forgot? and Zyxel or D-Link is dead end. IPv6 is not for everyone right now but a good part will want to use it. > and he does not know what an IP address is. Usually such users bring > 80% > of ISP's income, and the ISP will rather keep them happy :) it brings 80% of the income and 95% of the support cost. So make yourself happy by saving it... Whatever, IPv6 might not be for you. Your customers will go away one day. Not immediately but longer term. And by that time others have picked up your business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
- Original Message > From: Fredy Kuenzler > If you don't get extra v4 space in 1000 days, don't even consider to > complain. You have been warned. > > I would very much worry, if my most important resource to maintain my > business would dry out in less than 1000 days. That's why we fixed IPv6 > in AS13030. Fredy, how many residential customers do you have and how many of them have moved to pure ipv6? ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Stanislav Sinyagin schrieb: > The fact that Andreas or Tonnere is able to configure ipv6 at home > does not create a business case. Go look at your nearest > Interdiscount or Fust shop -- how many of the consumer > routers/firewalls/modems would support ipv6? How many of the shop > salesmen would ever hear such word? That's the main issue why IPv6 is not really growing. Too many people think IPv6 needs to have a short term business case. Think back 15 years. Internet would not exist as it is known today if people then only thought about the business case. If you don't get extra v4 space in 1000 days, don't even consider to complain. You have been warned. I would very much worry, if my most important resource to maintain my business would dry out in less than 1000 days. That's why we fixed IPv6 in AS13030. F. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Andreas, you forgot one thing: you are not a user (although replying in HTML to a techie mailing list is a typical user behavior :-) A typical user has windows XP at home, he buys cheap zyxel or D-link hardware, and he does not know what an IP address is. Usually such users bring 80% of ISP's income, and the ISP will rather keep them happy :) From: Andreas Fink To: Stanislav Sinyagin Cc: swi...@swinog.ch Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:50:34 AM Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
- Original Message From: Andreas Fink well, the Docsis 3.0 CMTS hardware is quite expensive, if not saying dramatically expensive. Then, the Docsis provisioning software is also quite expensive, I guess you simply bought a dead end solution. Good hardware vendors supply IPv6 out of the box or at least with firmware upgrades. There's no reason to be expensive I haven't bought anything, I just know the Docsis technology market. The provisioning software is generally not v6-ready, and the hardware generally needs expensive upgrade. Well, nobody said deploying IPv6 has to be free. With open source software IPv6 is for sure added. So replace "needs expensive upgrade" with "choose right product". It's no exucse. in DSL market, it's even worse: the Broadband Forum has not released yet any ipv6 related document... Who cares what the broadband forum says. We're in a IP world. There's 100's of RFC's documenting IPv6. I personally run IPv6 natively over a SHDSL link and it just works. As SHDSL shares the same basic ATM structure underneath like ADSL, I don't see why anyone could NOT do IPv6 if he just tries hard enough. IPv6 is at the end not that different to IPv4. Even with PPP it should work as PPP encapsulates link frames, not IP packets so you can easily stuff IPv6 packets into PPP. The fact that Andreas or Tonnere is able to configure ipv6 at home does not create a business case. Go look at your nearest Interdiscount or Fust shop -- how many of the consumer routers/firewalls/modems would support ipv6? How many of the shop salesmen would ever hear such word? There's two sides of the story, the ISP and the end user. If the ISP doesnt supply IPv6, no one will ever ask Fust or Interdiscount for IPv6 capable devices. And on top of my head I already know a few who are IPv6 ready. The FritzBox from AVM for example does also support IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling. Apple Airport Express does also. Cisco does support it (which isnt really the same class). But of course crappy dirt cheap devices like Zyxels don't. But no one want's to use them anyway. The end user has a choice. The ISP limits his choice. The non IPv6 ISP's will simply loose in the long term as IPv6 awareness has raised in 2008 drastically. Who cares what the broadband forum says. any ISP with more than few thousand xDSL customers does. You know, they are lazy enough to build something that does not have a standard supported by vendor majority. Besides, even if they start offering v6 today, users will not buy it, because of that Interdiscount/Fust issue. Also most windows PCs and home servers would need some tuning for v6. Sorry but "most windows PCs and home servers would need some tuning for v6" is just WRONG. If you have a proper configured IPv6 router and you plug a MacOS X or Linux box, they get IPv6 addresses automatically and are connected. This is part of the beauty of IPv6 to have autoconfiguration. I presume its the same in Windows Vista as its part of the standard. So, give it another 4-5 years, it's coming, but not as fast as you'd like it to :) I already waited 10 years. I won't have to wait for another 4-5. We have full IPv6 connectivity and we make extensive use of it. Its also a management issue. in USA IPv6 is not that common simply because everyone can get tons of IPv4 addresses too easy (at least in the past). But you gotta start sometime. And the time is now. Everyone supports IPv6 these day and personally I would not choose a BGP4 uplink which does NOT suport IPv6 (we actually have thrown a IPv4 provider out just recently and replace it with a IPv6 capable one). it's purely an economy issue. Big ISPs will not invest into something that the end-users don't require on massive scale. Those home end-users who have no idea what BGP or PPP means. They just connect their computers into the wall sockets and expect them to work. Right and exactly for this, IPv6 is good. Plug and play is much more a reality than in IPv4. I recently had to configure a Zyxel VDSL router and its a nightmare. Terms are unclear, too many weird buttons. NAT is getting into your way all the time. And once you configured it wrong and then configure it right (so all settings look exactly as they should) the dam thing doesnt work. Erase to factory defaults and reconfigure exactly the same settings made it work. Those kinds of problems are expensive for the ISP due to support, it makes an ISP look bad towards the customer. "Nothing works" will be the result. This is a cost to keep in mind. IPv6 is way way more "plug it in and it just works". And as it's been around since over 10 years, it is mature enough for deployment now. Anyway, enough said. Users have a choice and they will pick. Me as an end user will not pick anything not supporting native IPv6 unless I would have no other choice. __
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
This video explains the issue of ipv6 for residential market :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xs8luqRmBo ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
- Original Message > From: Andreas Fink > > well, the Docsis 3.0 CMTS hardware is quite expensive, > > if not saying dramatically expensive. > > > Then, the Docsis provisioning software is also quite expensive, > > I guess you simply bought a dead end solution. Good hardware vendors supply > IPv6 > out of the box or at least with firmware upgrades. There's no reason to be > expensive I haven't bought anything, I just know the Docsis technology market. The provisioning software is generally not v6-ready, and the hardware generally needs expensive upgrade. > > in DSL market, it's even worse: the Broadband Forum has not released yet any > > ipv6 related document... > > Who cares what the broadband forum says. We're in a IP world. There's 100's > of > RFC's documenting IPv6. I personally run IPv6 natively over a SHDSL link and > it > just works. As SHDSL shares the same basic ATM structure underneath like > ADSL, I > don't see why anyone could NOT do IPv6 if he just tries hard enough. IPv6 is > at > the end not that different to IPv4. Even with PPP it should work as PPP > encapsulates link frames, not IP packets so you can easily stuff IPv6 packets > into PPP. The fact that Andreas or Tonnere is able to configure ipv6 at home does not create a business case. Go look at your nearest Interdiscount or Fust shop -- how many of the consumer routers/firewalls/modems would support ipv6? How many of the shop salesmen would ever hear such word? > Who cares what the broadband forum says. any ISP with more than few thousand xDSL customers does. You know, they are lazy enough to build something that does not have a standard supported by vendor majority. Besides, even if they start offering v6 today, users will not buy it, because of that Interdiscount/Fust issue. Also most windows PCs and home servers would need some tuning for v6. So, give it another 4-5 years, it's coming, but not as fast as you'd like it to :) > > apart from that, yes, the engineers are usually lazy :-) > > Its also a management issue. in USA IPv6 is not that common simply because > everyone can get tons of IPv4 addresses too easy (at least in the past). > But you gotta start sometime. And the time is now. Everyone supports IPv6 > these > day and personally I would not choose a BGP4 uplink which does NOT suport > IPv6 > (we actually have thrown a IPv4 provider out just recently and replace it > with a > IPv6 capable one). it's purely an economy issue. Big ISPs will not invest into something that the end-users don't require on massive scale. Those home end-users who have no idea what BGP or PPP means. They just connect their computers into the wall sockets and expect them to work. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
On 24.02.2009, at 23:17, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > well, the Docsis 3.0 CMTS hardware is quite expensive, > if not saying dramatically expensive. > Then, the Docsis provisioning software is also quite expensive, I guess you simply bought a dead end solution. Good hardware vendors supply IPv6 out of the box or at least with firmware upgrades. There's no reason to be expensive > and I haven't heard of any free ipv6 upgrade from any of the > software vendors... Ehm. Cisco does (given you have a maintenance contract) always give free upgrades. And good ISP's have maintenance because they want to supply service 24/7. > then come the modems... well, probably some of them require only the > firmware upgrade... > > in DSL market, it's even worse: the Broadband Forum has not released > yet any > ipv6 related document... Who cares what the broadband forum says. We're in a IP world. There's 100's of RFC's documenting IPv6. I personally run IPv6 natively over a SHDSL link and it just works. As SHDSL shares the same basic ATM structure underneath like ADSL, I don't see why anyone could NOT do IPv6 if he just tries hard enough. IPv6 is at the end not that different to IPv4. Even with PPP it should work as PPP encapsulates link frames, not IP packets so you can easily stuff IPv6 packets into PPP. > apart from that, yes, the engineers are usually lazy :-) Its also a management issue. in USA IPv6 is not that common simply because everyone can get tons of IPv4 addresses too easy (at least in the past). But you gotta start sometime. And the time is now. Everyone supports IPv6 these day and personally I would not choose a BGP4 uplink which does NOT suport IPv6 (we actually have thrown a IPv4 provider out just recently and replace it with a IPv6 capable one). ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
so, what? I'm not telling that ipv6 is impossible, I'm just telling that there's no standard as such. And none of the big telcos would afford building a custom solution: everyone waits for standards to be published. Forget about PPP, the future networks are being built with broadcast media: http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/trlist.php - Original Message > From: Tonnerre Lombard > To: Stanislav Sinyagin > Cc: swi...@swinog.ch > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:20:25 PM > Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) > > Salut, Stanislav, > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > > in DSL market, it's even worse: the Broadband Forum has not released > > yet any ipv6 related document... > > Well, almost every modem supports the bridge mode, where IP6CP can be > applied without any problems. The (in)famous Cisco 877(?) also supports > it according to Tron. And then there was this bug in a development > version of the BSD PPPoE stack where the LCP would be torn down if no > IP6CP could be established (even if the IPCP connection was up). ;-) > > Tonnerre ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
Salut, Stanislav, On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > in DSL market, it's even worse: the Broadband Forum has not released > yet any ipv6 related document... Well, almost every modem supports the bridge mode, where IP6CP can be applied without any problems. The (in)famous Cisco 877(?) also supports it according to Tron. And then there was this bug in a development version of the BSD PPPoE stack where the LCP would be torn down if no IP6CP could be established (even if the IPCP connection was up). ;-) Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
For those interested, here's Cisco's slideshow from about 12 months ago (not much has changed): http://www.netnod.se/presentations/ipv6ws080423/netnod-ipv6-townsley.pdf and here's some more info in regards to DSL hardware: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE so, I would say, it will take another 2-3 years before ipv6 is offered to home users, and 4-5 years before we get v6 as a standard service at home. - Original Message > From: Stanislav Sinyagin > To: swi...@swinog.ch > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:17:07 PM > Subject: Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers) > > well, the Docsis 3.0 CMTS hardware is quite expensive, > if not saying dramatically expensive. > > Then, the Docsis provisioning software is also quite expensive, > and I haven't heard of any free ipv6 upgrade from any of the software > vendors... > > then come the modems... well, probably some of them require only the firmware > upgrade... > > in DSL market, it's even worse: the Broadband Forum has not released yet any > ipv6 related document... > > apart from that, yes, the engineers are usually lazy :-) > > > > From: "ro...@mgz.ch" > > maybe not all hardware (CPE) is able to handle docsis3 ? > > > > > > > So you were too lazy to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 ;-) > > ___ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPV6 Go (lazy providers)
well, the Docsis 3.0 CMTS hardware is quite expensive, if not saying dramatically expensive. Then, the Docsis provisioning software is also quite expensive, and I haven't heard of any free ipv6 upgrade from any of the software vendors... then come the modems... well, probably some of them require only the firmware upgrade... in DSL market, it's even worse: the Broadband Forum has not released yet any ipv6 related document... apart from that, yes, the engineers are usually lazy :-) > From: "ro...@mgz.ch" > maybe not all hardware (CPE) is able to handle docsis3 ? > > > > So you were too lazy to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 ;-) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
