Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/14 15:31, Neil J. McRae wrote: (and smart arses who think they have static IP¹s on their phones think before responding)) Just Saying! I do :-)
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 20 Oct 2014, at 09:04, Adrian Kennard uk...@e.gg wrote: On 05/09/14 15:31, Neil J. McRae wrote: (and smart arses who think they have static IP¹s on their phones think before responding)) Just Saying! I do :-) I saw that coming :) Anyway, the UK v6 council event was held last Thursday, had a good and varied audience, and there was a healthy level of discussion. The slides and video footage will be put online in due course. I’ll post here when they’re available. In terms of industry engagement it was good to have BSkyB, BT, Virgin Media, Netflix, EE, Three, Akamai and others present, and a good success story from the Belgian counterpart, and a little dive into security issues with Eric Vyncke. Tim
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Hi, I'd also appreciate such a hit list, to feed into our network testing: Any services, applications, connectivity problems that can replicated in the lab. I've obviously got the top 100 used on my current network, but any hints on targeting 'v6 brokenness' appreciated. The major issue with IPv6 deployment is that no one wrote a service design for IPv4, you have to take the time to check every service works in the new environment. But with a methodical approach i think you can get there. And unlike 3 years ago it feels we have all the standards and knowledge in place to make this happen, at least true for mobile. By the way, we use fixed line services in the radio access network. But we have not had to ask our fixed line providers to do anything for the mobile service, the 3GPP mobile architecture means all subscriber IPv6 is held in tunnels across the radio access network. I think mobile is lucky in that respect. Nick Sent on my IPv6-only phone on superfast 4GEE On 5 Sep 2014 20:15, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote: Hi Neil, Neil J. McRae wrote: As Ben noted similar issues but as I keep saying we who work in this industry are not atypical users. Indeed. The issue is that there are lots of little things, if it was one big thing then it would be easy to fix. My printer reboots everytime I try to print to it over IPv6 for example. Imagine the myriad of consumer setups new and old... And that's why I asked about a top 10 list. I am sure we can all come up with anecdotes, like your printer or the website with a in the DNS but a webserver that's not listening on that address. But something with some statistical rigor would be both useful and interesting. Do you have anything with statistical rigor or just a lot of anecdotes? Regards, Leo NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. EE Limited Registered in England and Wales Company Registered Number: 02382161 Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 7 Sep 2014, at 12:34, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: On 7 Sep 2014, at 12:01, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes something it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where teasing back layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane to the subject matter at hand is an arduous chore. In that case Will I'll stop wasting any more time on this! How is that for content free now? I’m sad that you think providing intellectual input to back up your assertions is a waste of time. “I really have no idea why Comcast and DTAG have deployed IPv6 to more end-users than we have broadband subs in our whole network. They must be using some kind of magic. Sorcery! I refuse to discuss it!” - Neil ”Sent from my ipad McRae, BT I hear Comcast have IPv6 enabled twice as many end users as BT has users. Having spoken to some of the Comcast support people, as part of an ISOC-led project to develop generic tools and advice for ISP help desks, they don’t seem to have any significant problems. If there is hard evidence of such issues, it would be interesting to see it, rather than just recounting handwavey anecdotes. Meanwhile, it seems Linkedin are now happy to go live, see http://engineering.linkedin.com/ipv6/permanent-launch-ipv6 Tim
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 17:15, Richard Patterson deton...@helix.net.nz wrote: there's plenty of things that content providers may care about that'll be broken under NAT44 and can be resolved by adopting IPv6. ... Geolocation tracking and/or CDN steering. Access restrictions (Betting sites blocking multiple users behind one IP). You think geolocation is going to be done at a finer resolution than /64 in IPv6? Ditto for access restrictions. Many clients enable privacy addresses by default. Hence if you have a business need to block someone by their network location, you would have no option but to block at least the /64.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Neil, I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes something it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where teasing back layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane to the subject matter at hand is an arduous chore. What you seem to be saying is ‘these US providers have a larger profit margin and they have wasted this money on IPv6 deployment’. I find it hard to believe they would do this at such detriment of shareholder value. Are you realistically saying Comcast rolled out v6 to as many customers as BT has broadband subscribers (~6m), without a business case for doing so? OK, let’s exclude the US then. Those Americans well known for their callous disregard of profit anyway. DTAG has 26% deployment. Free has 39%. Swisscom 27%. [1] Why are DT or Swisscom doing this where BT isn’t? Is it really the case of Neil McRae standing up and shouting about the emperor’s new clothes? Or is there another factor at play here? Will [1] http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ - that’s as measured on the network btw, not marketing puff. On 5 Sep 2014, at 20:42, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Will, If anyone has done V6 because of a business case then the hurdles they have must be insane! IPV6 is about being in this business. You mistakenly assume that in the UK we have done nothing which is massively incorrect - and my experiences about brokenness aren't just my own and speaking to many of the companies you mention it hasn't been painless for them nobody should be kidding themselves on that it was. The market in the UK I would argue is unique. Don't know if you remember the question I asked John from Comcast about the price of broadband in the US at the last UKNOF? IPV6 will be here when we need it. Neil Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 20:31, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: OK, that’s a bit more of a useful answer :-) So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast? They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its DOCSIS, doesn¹t do wholesale as far as I know, those would be pretty decent sized differences also but the key driver for IPV6 is not having enough IPV4 addresses, and at least in Europe that doesn¹t seem to be the case (yet). What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 either again because people have done half baked deployments. I think this could be an outdated assessment of the situation. A single data point (your home network) is just the kind of anecdata you yourself would stomp on ;-) OK, Comcast is all DOCSIS (but then so is VM in the UK). We can take a look at ATT, they operate a lot of DSL. VZW and T-Mob are mobile networks, so a whole different kettle of fish. That would seem to throw the access technology used out of the equation. (although the VoLTE/v6 situation is relevant there) So let’s go into address policy. ARIN hasn’t got the same sort of 'run out fairly' model that RIPE NCC has, however their cupboard is not yet bare: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. Since ARIN region has the bulk of v4 address space anyway, is v4 space any ‘scarcer’ there than in Europe? It’s difficult to tell. I just find it interesting that these are large access providers using diverse technologies, and those in the US have chosen to make considerable investment in deploying IPv6 to domestic end-users whilst those in the UK have not. I’m not really a v6 evangelist, but I am interested in understanding how the calculation of these business cases differ - the same as deployment of any other technology. (from another mail) For clarity though we have had IPV6 available on BT Internet Connect (business Internet service) for years- take up and demand very low. Traffic volumes don't even register on our graphs. Comcast claim a terabit of v6 edge traffic. I think that’s a fairly frightening amount. Will -- Will Hargrave +44 114 303
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 7 Sep 2014, at 11:19, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: Neil, I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes something it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where teasing back layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane to the subject matter at hand is an arduous chore. What you seem to be saying is ‘these US providers have a larger profit margin and they have wasted this money on IPv6 deployment’. I find it hard to believe they would do this at such detriment of shareholder value. Are you realistically saying Comcast rolled out v6 to as many customers as BT has broadband subscribers (~6m), without a business case for doing so? OK, let’s exclude the US then. Those Americans well known for their callous disregard of profit anyway. DTAG has 26% deployment. Free has 39%. Swisscom 27%. [1] Why are DT or Swisscom doing this where BT isn’t? Don’t forget there are a number of big companies who are embracing IPv6 and deploying within their organisations e.g. Continental, BMW, Goldman Sachs, Space.Net. Many organisations can see a business case for IPv6. Scott signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 7 Sep 2014, at 11:22, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: Neil, I don’t “mistakenly assume” anything. If anyone mistakenly assumes something it is most likely as a result of your content-free emails, where teasing back layers of defensive ego-preening in order to obtain data germane to the subject matter at hand is an arduous chore. In that case Will I'll stop wasting any more time on this! How is that for content free now? regards Neil
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
What the chuff. They seriously wanted to charge almost four hundred quid to add an IP block?? Peter Knapp -Original Message- From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Candler Sent: 07 September 2014 14:06 To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing Easynet 100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but would charge £395+VAT for doing it. So that idea went by the wayside. Regards, Brian.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Many providers do charge fees for any changes.. its not unusual. Options are to either negotiate it now, negotiate it upon renewal or to switch provider I'm sure there's plenty of providers on this list who can offer a bundled service with lower MRC :) Steve On 7 September 2014 14:17, Peter Knapp peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk wrote: What the chuff. They seriously wanted to charge almost four hundred quid to add an IP block?? Peter Knapp -Original Message- From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Candler Sent: 07 September 2014 14:06 To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing Easynet 100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but would charge £395+VAT for doing it. So that idea went by the wayside. Regards, Brian.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Our new line at work from Exponential-e came with ipv4 and ipv6 subnets as default, nice Martin On Sunday, 7 September 2014, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote: Many providers do charge fees for any changes.. its not unusual. Options are to either negotiate it now, negotiate it upon renewal or to switch provider I'm sure there's plenty of providers on this list who can offer a bundled service with lower MRC :) Steve On 7 September 2014 14:17, Peter Knapp peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk'); wrote: What the chuff. They seriously wanted to charge almost four hundred quid to add an IP block?? Peter Knapp -Original Message- From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk');] On Behalf Of Brian Candler Sent: 07 September 2014 14:06 To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk'); Subject: Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce Incidentally, I recently asked about getting IPv6 added to an existing Easynet 100M office leased line. The account manager said they could, but would charge £395+VAT for doing it. So that idea went by the wayside. Regards, Brian. -- -- Martin Hepworth, CISSP Oxford, UK
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
at $JOB-2 we had an entanet line and I specified IPv6 needed when I placed the order, but it was done afterwards and we were asked to pay a fee, I politely declined and asked Mr Lalonde to kick the right bottom. We had the v6 block pretty quickly, no fee, and were told he specifically didn't want to charge for it so as to encourage uptake!
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
bottom. We had the v6 block pretty quickly, no fee, and were told he specifically didn't want to charge for it so as to encourage uptake! As they should. There is some good ipv6 content for UKNOF29, strongly suggest those not attending and interested in the topic take the time to watch the webcast for the ipv6 content we have for this meeting. .. and a personal opinion, lets give the UK IPv6 Council a chance before we put up a burning 6UK effigy :) Chris
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Now, only one of these groups is really feeling the pain of address depletion, and that's the access ISPs(2). Some feel that pain badly, and it's certainly true that there's no way you could enter the market as an access ISP in the UK given a /22 of address space. You can if you're selling access to your own services and you're dual stack. This allows you to run the CPE side in IPv6 only, but then you're possibly a content provider selling access to your own content?? :-) -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. http://www.surevoip.co.uk OpenPGP (GPG/PGP) Public Key: 0x8CFBA8E6 - Import from hkp://subkeys.pgp.net or http://www.suretecgroup.com/0x8CFBA8E6.gpg
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Hmm! Unfortunately that sounds like a made up imaginary world though! :) Or is someone actually doing this (and have more than 75k customers were the /23 would give challenges)? We're doing it, but don't have 75k customers :-( -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. http://www.surevoip.co.uk OpenPGP (GPG/PGP) Public Key: 0x8CFBA8E6 - Import from hkp://subkeys.pgp.net or http://www.suretecgroup.com/0x8CFBA8E6.gpg
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 08:15, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote: On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Hmm! Unfortunately that sounds like a made up imaginary world though! :) Or is someone actually doing this (and have more than 75k customers were the /23 would give challenges)? We're doing it, but don't have 75k customers :-( So no Internet access at all, just to your own content? Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 4 Sep 2014, at 23:03, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: sorry Andy but that's complete rubbish! NAT44 has been a requirement since the very notion of IPV6. That’s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. - it may not be desirable but even those that rolled out IPV6 years ago will need it. the only way NAT44 would have been avoidable would have been for everyone on the planet to press the IPV6 button at the same time! the only odds longer than that happening anytime soon is Roy Hodgson being England manager in a years time! Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the home doesn’t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because there’s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. to cover another point, only the crazy of crazies would think that anyone had a vested interest to slow down V6 deployment, only folks I can see are the existing RIRs and the brokers trying make some money out this situation CGN tin vendors. :-) (btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week, oh and did you know VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something ringing - no - it's not a phone - it's the killer app bell. ;) Congrats, hope to hear more about it next week in Belfast. Andy
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 September 2014 08:31, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 05/09/2014 08:15, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote: On 5 September 2014 07:51, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Hmm! Unfortunately that sounds like a made up imaginary world though! :) Or is someone actually doing this (and have more than 75k customers were the /23 would give challenges)? We're doing it, but don't have 75k customers :-( So no Internet access at all, just to your own content? That's right, but just for VoIP Only access. The content being a SIP or Video call on Hosted VoIP/DDI etc. It means we can actually keep a VoIP only access circuit really low priced. There is more to do for clever folks using IPv6 to IPv4 tunnels etc. but it's a good start rather than going out and paying ~£10 ex VAT per IP address on a /22 above the /22 you get as an LIR (buying a failing ISP may be cheaper for /22 at the moment). But saying that, there are still plenty IPv4 out there to buy if we need to which wouldn't take more than 1-2 months billing to make a return. Gavin. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. http://www.surevoip.co.uk OpenPGP (GPG/PGP) Public Key: 0x8CFBA8E6 - Import from hkp://subkeys.pgp.net or http://www.suretecgroup.com/0x8CFBA8E6.gpg
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
. but it's a good start rather than going out and paying ~£10 ex VAT per IP address on a /22 above the /22 you get as an LIR (buying a failing ISP may be cheaper for /22 at the moment). But saying that, there are still plenty IPv4 /22 ? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
/22 ? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 Sorry, when we got our LIR status that is. Even tougher now. Either need to buy them or buy someone. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. http://www.surevoip.co.uk OpenPGP (GPG/PGP) Public Key: 0x8CFBA8E6 - Import from hkp://subkeys.pgp.net or http://www.suretecgroup.com/0x8CFBA8E6.gpg
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Neil I think Andy sums this up well. Also there has been some confusion about the taskforce. The taskforce didn't set up to tell ISPs what to do - in fact BT was prominently a founder back in 2001 but went cool when 21C Network became the foo of choice. My perspective was and remains as a developer and user of networks. I prefer to have networks that I can directly address devices over rather than being mediated. That is my main problem with the UK model for consumer broadband. It has ignored this basic characteristic. A somewhat broader point than IPv6 or IPv4 through address translators. I was sorry to see 6UK close but I completely understand the frustrations that led to it. Incidentally the taskforce never became a formal entity so there was nothing really to close down - but to answer Martin's complaint - the website had been moved from BT to U o Southampton when BT became less keen. But we downed tools to keep the space clear for 6UK when that was started. The TF participants were partly instrumental in pushing HMG to get that started. On that note I hope ISPs and operators as well as vendors will support the announcement of the new Council in Belfast so UK developers and users can start very shortly to assume everything will be addressable directly over v6 ASAP! best Christian Andy Davidson wrote: On 4 Sep 2014, at 23:03, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: sorry Andy but that's complete rubbish! NAT44 has been a requirement since the very notion of IPV6. That’s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. - it may not be desirable but even those that rolled out IPV6 years ago will need it. the only way NAT44 would have been avoidable would have been for everyone on the planet to press the IPV6 button at the same time! the only odds longer than that happening anytime soon is Roy Hodgson being England manager in a years time! Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the home doesn’t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because there’s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. to cover another point, only the crazy of crazies would think that anyone had a vested interest to slow down V6 deployment, only folks I can see are the existing RIRs and the brokers trying make some money out this situation CGN tin vendors. :-) (btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week, oh and did you know VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something ringing - no - it's not a phone - it's the killer app bell. ;) Congrats, hope to hear more about it next week in Belfast. Andy -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, MCMA - @ FirstHand - +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 09:42, Christian de Larrinaga c...@firsthand.netmailto:c...@firsthand.net wrote: Thanks for the history lesson, my points were more generic about how we approach this. On that note I hope ISPs and operators as well as vendors will support the announcement of the new Council in Belfast so UK developers and users can start very shortly to assume everything will be addressable directly over v6 ASAP! I don't think anyone will be against it, I think many of us will be skeptical about what more will be achieved. Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
I respect those points and it is good that BT is again more proactive on this issue. Also I thought Brandon's comments on the complexities of deploying v6 within an applications service like the BBC offer some valuable clue that a user actually receiving IPv6 from an ISP is a small first step to achieving IPv6 support in the depths of v4 coded application services. First though such users will want to know v6 is widely available I expect. best Christian Neil J. McRae wrote: On 05/09/2014 09:42, Christian de Larrinaga c...@firsthand.net mailto:c...@firsthand.net wrote: Thanks for the history lesson, my points were more generic about how we approach this. On that note I hope ISPs and operators as well as vendors will support the announcement of the new Council in Belfast so UK developers and users can start very shortly to assume everything will be addressable directly over v6 ASAP! I don’t think anyone will be against it, I think many of us will be skeptical about what more will be achieved. Neil. -- Christian de Larrinaga +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net - signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 09:43, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6 I'd say that giving users native V6 and NAT44 gives the content companies *no reason whatsoever* to adopt V6, since they know all their content is reachable via the tried-and-tested V4 path anyway. It's not broken on their side.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Hi, Brian Candler wrote: I'd say that giving users native V6 and NAT44 gives the content companies *no reason whatsoever* to adopt V6, since they know all their content is reachable via the tried-and-tested V4 path anyway. I'm making an assumption that native v6 end to end will perform better than nat44 squashed connectivity, and that web applications will become more interactive with more moving parts, so therefore that content networks/applications will get more latency sensitive, and therefore also will consume more ports per user session. I am also making an assumption that users will prefer better performing websites to bad performing websites and will vote in some number with their feet towards better performing sites, and that native (working) v6 will be so much better than nat (broken) v4 that a difference will be observed by users. And I'm making a final assumption that this is well known by sensible content assets like Google and why they have gone and done work to dual stack their content infrastructure early. Yes, these are assumptions but is anyone going to stick a bet against them ? Other than NeilX, who is known for recreational contraryism. :-) Andy
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 13:56, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: I'm making an assumption that native v6 end to end will perform better than nat44 squashed connectivity, and that web applications will become more interactive with more moving parts, so therefore that content networks/applications will get more latency sensitive, and therefore also will consume more ports per user session. I am also making an assumption that users will prefer better performing websites to bad performing websites and will vote in some number with their feet towards better performing sites, and that native (working) v6 will be so much better than nat (broken) v4 that a difference will be observed by users. And I'm making a final assumption that this is well known by sensible content assets like Google and why they have gone and done work to dual stack their content infrastructure early. Yes, these are assumptions but is anyone going to stick a bet against them ? Other than NeilX, who is known for recreational contraryism. :-) As opposed to Andy who is known for his recreational stating the bleeding obvious! ;) For the applications that work through CGN the difference between CGN and IPV6 is largely zero from a performance point of view even under load. (was it today that someone announced that there are now more things bought through mobile phones than computers, how do mobiles connect to the internet again? (and smart arses who think they have static IP¹s on their phones think before responding)) Just Saying!
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:32, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. That’s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (which are presumably connected to the same internet) have not had this problem. Google has analysed broken v6 and does not think it a barrier to deployment. I wonder why BT differs so much from Comcast, Verizon or ATT, all of whom have penetration in the 20-60% range.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 Sep 2014, at 15:31, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org wrote: For the applications that work through CGN the difference between CGN and IPV6 is largely zero from a performance point of view even under load. No, applications are getting more port grabby, this is incompatible with NAT at scale. I’ve had things like tiles fail to load on Goog maps at busy times when tethered to a mobile device and IM sessions being lumpy. You could in fact say that I have been frustrated by NAT and would not have been were I to have native v6 through to these services, which does somewhat bring me to the point I made this morning that kicked off the discussion : On 4 Sep 2014, at 15:17, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org wrote: Also I see IPV6 frustrating users where its been rolled out before it was ready which is something that's very bad. One could make the same comment about frustrated users because of NAT44, which is now the only way forward for all of the subscribers to service providers which don’t have a v6 plan by now. “ Andy
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Not true, there's plenty of things that content providers may care about that'll be broken under NAT44 and can be resolved by adopting IPv6. The obvious things being: Port forwarding Dodgy or non-existing ALG in the gateway, breaking things like SIP, FTP etc. Geolocation tracking and/or CDN steering. Access restrictions (Betting sites blocking multiple users behind one IP). These are just some of the issues we have to face with deploying NAT44, and yes they do have work arounds that work with varying success, but ultimately IPv6 uptake helps mitigate these issues for both the eyeballs and content providers. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Brian Candler b.cand...@pobox.com wrote: On 05/09/2014 09:43, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6 I'd say that giving users native V6 and NAT44 gives the content companies *no reason whatsoever* to adopt V6, since they know all their content is reachable via the tried-and-tested V4 path anyway. It's not broken on their side.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 16:41, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: That¹s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (which are presumably connected to the same internet?) have not had this problem. Google has analysed broken v6 and does not think it a barrier to deployment. I wonder why BT differs so much from Comcast, Verizon or AT?T, all of whom have penetration in the 20-60% range. Wow Wee Will 20-60% (!) that¹s a very big range! On your other points I think you need to re-read what I wrote! Or more importantly focus on what I did say versus what you made up above! Regards, Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 16:43, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.orgmailto:a...@nosignal.org wrote: No, applications are getting more port grabby, this is incompatible with NAT at scale. I've had things like tiles fail to load on Goog maps at busy times when tethered to a mobile device and IM sessions being lumpy. You could in fact say that I have been frustrated by NAT and would not have been were I to have native v6 through to these services, which does somewhat bring me to the point I made this morning that kicked off the discussion : I think we are stuck in the time warp of 5 years ago. Its simple to make CGN scale - the question is whether you want to or not. You are also making a big assumption about customers, look in the mirror, most of our customers don't look like that and support calls don't come cheap both in the minute you need to make one and in the confidence of what services our industry provides. Regards, Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 Sep 2014, at 17:07, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. That¹s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (which are presumably connected to the same internet?) have not had this problem. Google has analysed broken v6 and does not think it a barrier to deployment. I wonder why BT differs so much from Comcast, Verizon or AT?T, all of whom have penetration in the 20-60% range. Wow Wee Will 20-60% (!) that¹s a very big range! Yes. This is because i was talking about multiple ISPs, who have different penetration rates, as one might expect. According to the article at [1], Comcast is at 30%, ATT 20% and Verizon Wireless at 54%. Other data points are available. The specifics do not matter. On your other points I think you need to re-read what I wrote! Or more importantly focus on what I did say versus what you made up above! My other points? I only made one, and that was to ask you why BT is different, from, say, Comcast. This is a technical list, and I and many others would like to hear your experiences and data points. You can stop wasting both yours and my time with personal attacks and all that tedious crap, because my reading comprehension is just fine. To assist you, I re-quoted both your and my original text above. So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast? [1] http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2014/07/comcast-twc-verizon-at-t-pushing-ipv6-transition-in-us
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/2014 17:47, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: My other points? I only made one, and that was to ask you why BT is different, from, say, Comcast. This is a technical list, and I and many others would like to hear your experiences and data points. You can stop wasting both yours and my time with personal attacks and all that tedious crap, because my reading comprehension is just fine. To assist you, I re-quoted both your and my original text above. Personal attack? Is it that easy to pull your leg ? :) However, I must apologise as I did read something not as you had written it! So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast? They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its DOCSIS, doesn¹t do wholesale as far as I know, those would be pretty decent sized differences also but the key driver for IPV6 is not having enough IPV4 addresses, and at least in Europe that doesn¹t seem to be the case (yet). What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 either again because people have done half baked deployments. Regards, Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 09/04/2014 06:03 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote: (btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week, oh and did you know VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something ringing - no - it's not a phone - it's the killer app bell. ;) Judging by their v6 take-up stats this past year, looks like T-Mobile US and VZW have already figured that... Keith
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Indeed - would they have done that without it? Doubtful. Neil Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:27, Keith Mitchell ke...@uknof.org.uk wrote: On 09/04/2014 06:03 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote: (btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week, oh and did you know VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something ringing - no - it's not a phone - it's the killer app bell. ;) Judging by their v6 take-up stats this past year, looks like T-Mobile US and VZW have already figured that... Keith
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 05/09/2014 17:47, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 either again because people have done half baked deployments. Many UK Universities (and other Universities around the world) provide dual stack. Indeed at Loughborough University we provide dual stack on nearly all VLANs. That’s approximately 48K edge ports and around 10K wireless clients all with IPv6 and we have very few reports of problems with IPv6 brokeness. I hear lots of excuses here why IPv6 can’t be done yet other European countries seem to be getting along fine and adopting IPv6 at a much faster rate, and the education sector has been doing IPv6 for years. Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the ability to innovate). Regards Scott Armitage signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Scott, This has nothing to do with innovation - configuration maybe. If we had been innovative then we might not had needed V6 at all. For clarity though we have had IPV6 available on BT Internet Connect (business Internet service) for years- take up and demand very low. Traffic volumes don't even register on our graphs. I refer back to UKNOF where the 4 major service providers gave their views - remarkably consistent as I recall and I think it's recorded. Neil Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 05/09/2014 17:47, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 either again because people have done half baked deployments. Many UK Universities (and other Universities around the world) provide dual stack. Indeed at Loughborough University we provide dual stack on nearly all VLANs. That’s approximately 48K edge ports and around 10K wireless clients all with IPv6 and we have very few reports of problems with IPv6 brokeness. I hear lots of excuses here why IPv6 can’t be done yet other European countries seem to be getting along fine and adopting IPv6 at a much faster rate, and the education sector has been doing IPv6 for years. Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the ability to innovate). Regards Scott Armitage
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 05/09/14 17:15, Neil J. McRae wrote: I think we are stuck in the time warp of 5 years ago. Its simple to make CGN scale - the question is whether you want to or not I don't know about you, but I want the Internet to be a fundamentally asymmetric place where consumers know their place and are happy with their iShopping and Facetweeting. They should know better than to try to use my Internet for anything else. Silly humans.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
And the great news is that they can and it's reliable and super fast on BT Infinity! Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:48, William Waites wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk wrote: On 05/09/14 17:15, Neil J. McRae wrote: I think we are stuck in the time warp of 5 years ago. Its simple to make CGN scale - the question is whether you want to or not I don't know about you, but I want the Internet to be a fundamentally asymmetric place where consumers know their place and are happy with their iShopping and Facetweeting. They should know better than to try to use my Internet for anything else. Silly humans.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Just to dive in on this debate. We have gone really hard at our customer V6 rollout because we believe it's the right thing to do and at our scale it's much more feasible. However I can tell you from experience that once you run with v6 live with real customers for a while there are many small issues that come to the surface, things we have found include: 1) The 'commodity' CPEs (in our case Zyxel and Netgear), have slightly flakey v6 implementations that are far from auto configuring and break occasionally in random and unpredictable ways. The Netgears are particularly horrible as they don't dual stack and require two PPPOE sessions. All of them have really basic v6 with all or nothing firewalls, etc. It's all pretty immature and lacks the polish of a battle tested solution. I am sure someone will suggest a 'good' commodity v6 CPE, but as we have our VDSL2 network things like chipset compatibility have to outrank v6. 2) Random sites and services not working on v6. Recently a customer called to complain MS Skydrive wasn't working for them, the answer was to turn off v6 on that customers CPE, and it's just not worth the time to investigate why and fix for v6. 3) Even on our side of the fence we encounter problems with what should be a robust solution by now, for example we use 7200s for our BNGs and implement basic traffic policing on PPPOE sessions, works fine on v4 traffic it works fine on v6 it either works in one direction or not at all. All of the above are trivial issues and with a bit of spit and polish by the vendors could be sorted pretty quickly, but they won't sort these issues until take up is at such a level it's a problem. We need that 'killer app' to truly drive demand from end customers and then it will all come together I am sure. Regards... Ben Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:33, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 05/09/2014 08:49, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the home doesn¹t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because there¹s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. See above. Regards, Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Ben I think everyone thinks it's the right thing and as you say it's just a matter of time. Neil Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:56, Ben King b...@warwicknet.com wrote: Just to dive in on this debate. We have gone really hard at our customer V6 rollout because we believe it's the right thing to do and at our scale it's much more feasible. However I can tell you from experience that once you run with v6 live with real customers for a while there are many small issues that come to the surface, things we have found include: 1) The 'commodity' CPEs (in our case Zyxel and Netgear), have slightly flakey v6 implementations that are far from auto configuring and break occasionally in random and unpredictable ways. The Netgears are particularly horrible as they don't dual stack and require two PPPOE sessions. All of them have really basic v6 with all or nothing firewalls, etc. It's all pretty immature and lacks the polish of a battle tested solution. I am sure someone will suggest a 'good' commodity v6 CPE, but as we have our VDSL2 network things like chipset compatibility have to outrank v6. 2) Random sites and services not working on v6. Recently a customer called to complain MS Skydrive wasn't working for them, the answer was to turn off v6 on that customers CPE, and it's just not worth the time to investigate why and fix for v6. 3) Even on our side of the fence we encounter problems with what should be a robust solution by now, for example we use 7200s for our BNGs and implement basic traffic policing on PPPOE sessions, works fine on v4 traffic it works fine on v6 it either works in one direction or not at all. All of the above are trivial issues and with a bit of spit and polish by the vendors could be sorted pretty quickly, but they won't sort these issues until take up is at such a level it's a problem. We need that 'killer app' to truly drive demand from end customers and then it will all come together I am sure. Regards... Ben Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:33, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 05/09/2014 08:49, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the home doesn¹t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because there¹s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. See above. Regards, Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the ability to innovate). Just in innovation which is a key part of my role at BT BT is the 3rd largest investor in RD in the UK and 2nd largest fixed line telecoms RD investor in the world. BT invested over $1Billon in RD in 2010/11. We employ 17,000 scientists and technologists worldwide and have since 1990 have had over 10,000 patents granted. cheers Neil.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 September 2014 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. I wonder how long ago it was that you were running dual stack at home? I've been running it for several months at home and in our office for a couple of years without noticing a single issue. Of course, that could be down to differences in the way different people use the internet, but it might be that things have improved. Regards, Dan
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:20, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the ability to innovate). Just in innovation which is a key part of my role at BT BT is the 3rd largest investor in RD in the UK and 2nd largest fixed line telecoms RD investor in the world. BT invested over $1Billon in RD in 2010/11. We employ 17,000 scientists and technologists worldwide and have since 1990 have had over 10,000 patents granted. With all that at your disposal, deploying IPv6 to all your customers should be no problem ;-) signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Daniel Things are improving - there is no question about that. Hopefully is perfect just as it's needed! Neil Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:29, Daniel Ankers md1...@md1clv.commailto:md1...@md1clv.com wrote: On 5 September 2014 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org wrote: When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that^1s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. I wonder how long ago it was that you were running dual stack at home? I've been running it for several months at home and in our office for a couple of years without noticing a single issue. Of course, that could be down to differences in the way different people use the internet, but it might be that things have improved. Regards, Dan
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Deployment ! If only it was just about that part! Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:30, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:20, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:38, Scott Armitage s.p.armit...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: Whilst I don’t work in the ISP industry I can only assume this is because of the aggressively competitve nature of the sector (which limits the ability to innovate). Just in innovation which is a key part of my role at BT BT is the 3rd largest investor in RD in the UK and 2nd largest fixed line telecoms RD investor in the world. BT invested over $1Billon in RD in 2010/11. We employ 17,000 scientists and technologists worldwide and have since 1990 have had over 10,000 patents granted. With all that at your disposal, deploying IPv6 to all your customers should be no problem ;-)
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Neil, Neil J. McRae wrote: [...] Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. I've not really noticed any IPv6 problems on our office LAN over the last few years but an office environment is obviously more controlled than a consumer one. That said, I have been a consumer customer of T-mobile's and TWC's IPv6 services for a while now and can't say that I have ever noticed any brokenness there, either. Are you able to share some kind of top 10 or top five broken things and their frequency? As an individual I am not statistically significant and could just be lucky. As an operator you must have lots of statistically valid data. Leo
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
My printer didn't work over IPv4 on Wednesday; don't tell BT or they'll turn our service off for our own good? On 5 September 2014 19:50:43 GMT+01:00, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Leo, As Ben noted similar issues but as I keep saying we who work in this industry are not atypical users. The issue is that there are lots of little things, if it was one big thing then it would be easy to fix. My printer reboots everytime I try to print to it over IPv6 for example. Imagine the myriad of consumer setups new and old... Regards, Neil Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 19:42, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote: Neil, Neil J. McRae wrote: [...] Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. I've not really noticed any IPv6 problems on our office LAN over the last few years but an office environment is obviously more controlled than a consumer one. That said, I have been a consumer customer of T-mobile's and TWC's IPv6 services for a while now and can't say that I have ever noticed any brokenness there, either. Are you able to share some kind of top 10 or top five broken things and their frequency? As an individual I am not statistically significant and could just be lucky. As an operator you must have lots of statistically valid data. Leo -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Hi Neil, Neil J. McRae wrote: As Ben noted similar issues but as I keep saying we who work in this industry are not atypical users. Indeed. The issue is that there are lots of little things, if it was one big thing then it would be easy to fix. My printer reboots everytime I try to print to it over IPv6 for example. Imagine the myriad of consumer setups new and old... And that's why I asked about a top 10 list. I am sure we can all come up with anecdotes, like your printer or the website with a in the DNS but a webserver that's not listening on that address. But something with some statistical rigor would be both useful and interesting. Do you have anything with statistical rigor or just a lot of anecdotes? Regards, Leo
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: OK, that’s a bit more of a useful answer :-) So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast? They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its DOCSIS, doesn¹t do wholesale as far as I know, those would be pretty decent sized differences also but the key driver for IPV6 is not having enough IPV4 addresses, and at least in Europe that doesn¹t seem to be the case (yet). What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 either again because people have done half baked deployments. I think this could be an outdated assessment of the situation. A single data point (your home network) is just the kind of anecdata you yourself would stomp on ;-) OK, Comcast is all DOCSIS (but then so is VM in the UK). We can take a look at ATT, they operate a lot of DSL. VZW and T-Mob are mobile networks, so a whole different kettle of fish. That would seem to throw the access technology used out of the equation. (although the VoLTE/v6 situation is relevant there) So let’s go into address policy. ARIN hasn’t got the same sort of 'run out fairly' model that RIPE NCC has, however their cupboard is not yet bare: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. Since ARIN region has the bulk of v4 address space anyway, is v4 space any ‘scarcer’ there than in Europe? It’s difficult to tell. I just find it interesting that these are large access providers using diverse technologies, and those in the US have chosen to make considerable investment in deploying IPv6 to domestic end-users whilst those in the UK have not. I’m not really a v6 evangelist, but I am interested in understanding how the calculation of these business cases differ - the same as deployment of any other technology. (from another mail) For clarity though we have had IPV6 available on BT Internet Connect (business Internet service) for years- take up and demand very low. Traffic volumes don't even register on our graphs. Comcast claim a terabit of v6 edge traffic. I think that’s a fairly frightening amount. Will
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Will, If anyone has done V6 because of a business case then the hurdles they have must be insane! IPV6 is about being in this business. You mistakenly assume that in the UK we have done nothing which is massively incorrect - and my experiences about brokenness aren't just my own and speaking to many of the companies you mention it hasn't been painless for them nobody should be kidding themselves on that it was. The market in the UK I would argue is unique. Don't know if you remember the question I asked John from Comcast about the price of broadband in the US at the last UKNOF? IPV6 will be here when we need it. Neil Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2014, at 20:31, Will Hargrave w...@harg.net wrote: On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:22, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: OK, that’s a bit more of a useful answer :-) So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast? They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its DOCSIS, doesn¹t do wholesale as far as I know, those would be pretty decent sized differences also but the key driver for IPV6 is not having enough IPV4 addresses, and at least in Europe that doesn¹t seem to be the case (yet). What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 either again because people have done half baked deployments. I think this could be an outdated assessment of the situation. A single data point (your home network) is just the kind of anecdata you yourself would stomp on ;-) OK, Comcast is all DOCSIS (but then so is VM in the UK). We can take a look at ATT, they operate a lot of DSL. VZW and T-Mob are mobile networks, so a whole different kettle of fish. That would seem to throw the access technology used out of the equation. (although the VoLTE/v6 situation is relevant there) So let’s go into address policy. ARIN hasn’t got the same sort of 'run out fairly' model that RIPE NCC has, however their cupboard is not yet bare: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. Since ARIN region has the bulk of v4 address space anyway, is v4 space any ‘scarcer’ there than in Europe? It’s difficult to tell. I just find it interesting that these are large access providers using diverse technologies, and those in the US have chosen to make considerable investment in deploying IPv6 to domestic end-users whilst those in the UK have not. I’m not really a v6 evangelist, but I am interested in understanding how the calculation of these business cases differ - the same as deployment of any other technology. (from another mail) For clarity though we have had IPV6 available on BT Internet Connect (business Internet service) for years- take up and demand very low. Traffic volumes don't even register on our graphs. Comcast claim a terabit of v6 edge traffic. I think that’s a fairly frightening amount. Will
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 5 September 2014 20:42, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: IPV6 will be here when we need it. Indeed, IPv6 will be here when BT need it. Aled
[uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Would the owner of ... UK IPv6 Taskforce http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/ ... kindly close down the website. I see the last update as 2006'ish. Just saying. Martin PS: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption ... UK @ 0.19% ... Peru @ 7.04% ... just saying.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 04/09/2014 13:59, Martin J. Levy wrote: UK IPv6 Taskforce http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/ Arguably replaced by the UK IPv6 Council, which will be introduced further at UKNOF29 Belfast next week: https://indico.uknof.org.uk/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=19confId=31 PS: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption ... UK @ 0.19% ... Peru @ 7.04% ... just saying. Google may see more ipv6 email sent to them if most people didn't have to downgrade to push v4 to them due to gmail filters putting a lot of ipv6 email into Junk. 8) Chris
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
and while I'm on the subject ... at least 6UK removed/deleted their domain when they turned off the lights. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2230838/uk-ipv6-transition-group-6uk-pulls-its-own-plug http://www.6uk.org.uk/2012/12/6uk-powerless-to-encourage-ipv6-adoption-board-resigns/ Sigh. Martin On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Chris Russell ch...@nifry.com wrote: On 04/09/2014 13:59, Martin J. Levy wrote: UK IPv6 Taskforce http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/ Arguably replaced by the UK IPv6 Council, which will be introduced further at UKNOF29 Belfast next week: https://indico.uknof.org.uk/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=19confId=31 PS: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption ... UK @ 0.19% ... Peru @ 7.04% ... just saying. Google may see more ipv6 email sent to them if most people didn't have to downgrade to push v4 to them due to gmail filters putting a lot of ipv6 email into Junk. 8) Chris
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 4 Sep 2014, at 14:35, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: IPV6 will be here when its needed, the forum you need to convince to do it is called the market. Sure, but it’s interesting how different markets are moving at different paces. A colleague in another place made an interesting comment which was their biggest challenge with IPV6 demployment has been the doomsday spouted by forums that says OMFG we are going to run out of IP addresses only for that date to move back and back. Whilst I know its going to happen I have some sympathy for that point of view. Shoot me now! The good forums/lists to be on are the ones that are discussing how to do it, or how they’ve done it. There’s quite a few out there, with a high signal to noise ratio. I’ve asked Consulintel to turn off the old UKv6TF DNS. Good luck turning off all outdated info on the interwebs though, might even free up some IPv4 addresses :) Tim Regards, Neil PS. I might compare the GDP of peru and the ukŠ just saying! On 04/09/2014 14:24, Martin J. Levy mah...@mahtin.com wrote: and while I'm on the subject ... at least 6UK removed/deleted their domain when they turned off the lights. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2230838/uk-ipv6-transition-group- 6uk-pulls-its-own-plug http://www.6uk.org.uk/2012/12/6uk-powerless-to-encourage-ipv6-adoption-boa rd-resigns/ Sigh. Martin On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Chris Russell ch...@nifry.com wrote: On 04/09/2014 13:59, Martin J. Levy wrote: UK IPv6 Taskforce http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/ Arguably replaced by the UK IPv6 Council, which will be introduced further at UKNOF29 Belfast next week: https://indico.uknof.org.uk/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=19confId=31 PS: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6 -adoption ... UK @ 0.19% ... Peru @ 7.04% ... just saying. Google may see more ipv6 email sent to them if most people didn't have to downgrade to push v4 to them due to gmail filters putting a lot of ipv6 email into Junk. 8) Chris
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
the task force approach of just banging the drum, handing out a few sarnies and a flyer isn't going to make it happen. I agree, and that?s not what the UK Council will do. Rather, the aim is to make it more like - for example - the Swiss and Belgian Councils, which are more about sharing experiences from those planning and doing There's a hand full of residential ISPs in the UK, they will do it when they want sarnies or not. They may do it sooner if there's some fat subsidies up for grabs and that's the only way a government body can really change anything There are certainly still emerging issues such as the recent ones seen with IPv6 and gmail. There will be things to fix, that's not bad, it's just reality of doing new stuff brandon
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
quite a few ISPs use packaged products from third parties which might be part of the problem... I am sure most ISPs network equipment has had v6 support for years, but if they have things like traffic shapers, transparent proxies, load balancers, content delivery networks* etc they might not have sufficient control to simply flick the IPv6 switch to on. In this particular instance, its likely that newer smaller ISPs might have it easier than well established ones who have all sorts of legacy gear to worry about. * feel free to ask me off list about $employer's excellent IPv6 support in our product ;-)
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 4 September 2014 16:19, Paul Mansfield paul+uk...@mansfield.co.uk wrote: In this particular instance, its likely that newer smaller ISPs might have it easier than well established ones who have all sorts of legacy gear to worry about. I sometimes wonder if the larger, established ISPs, sitting on their old allocations of IPv4 addresses, have a vested interest in preserving the status quo since without a functioning IPv6, the lack of IPv4 space is a barrier to new competitors entering the market. Aled
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
Tim, I’ve asked Consulintel to turn off the old UKv6TF DNS. Thanks! That's a positive step. It can live on, as an archive, within The Wayback Machine. Martin
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
In this particular instance, its likely that newer smaller ISPs might have it easier than well established ones who have all sorts of legacy gear to worry about. Indeed, also one question that should be asked is of those who essentially offer ISP + Infrastructure services, what percentage of projects are you IPv6 enabling when not specifically requested ? If those projects whereas IPv6 was not specifically requested were considered as a value-add to enable IPv6, would those statistics be far higher ? Should Comcast be congratulated for even attempting a large scale ipv6 roll-out to learn of the true issues, or chastised for the issues they've seen. I can see both sides here, large telcos often have enough in the way of issues to deal with, without making potentially more headaches. We all have a part to play in this IMO, from small to large. Chris
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
On 4 Sep 2014, at 15:17, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Also I see IPV6 frustrating users where its been rolled out before it was ready which is something that's very bad. One could make the same comment about frustrated users because of NAT44, which is now the only way forward for all of the subscribers to service providers which don’t have a v6 plan by now. A
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
I think thats actually the current status, its just that nothing has changed much since 2006 On 4 September 2014 13:59, Martin J. Levy mah...@mahtin.com wrote: Would the owner of ... UK IPv6 Taskforce http://www.uk.ipv6tf.org/ ... kindly close down the website. I see the last update as 2006'ish. Just saying. Martin PS: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption ... UK @ 0.19% ... Peru @ 7.04% ... just saying. -- Director / Founder IX Reach Ltd E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com M: +44 7966 048633 Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
sorry Andy but that's complete rubbish! NAT44 has been a requirement since the very notion of IPV6. - it may not be desirable but even those that rolled out IPV6 years ago will need it. the only way NAT44 would have been avoidable would have been for everyone on the planet to press the IPV6 button at the same time! the only odds longer than that happening anytime soon is Roy Hodgson being England manager in a years time! don't get me wrong I wish I could click my fingers and we are all in V6 land but honestly, nobody needs to panic about IPV6. It'll arrive and work when needed and life will go on. to cover another point, only the crazy of crazies would think that anyone had a vested interest to slow down V6 deployment, only folks I can see are the existing RIRs and the brokers trying make some money out this situation - how bloody dare they make money! ;) cheers, Neil. (btw we made our first live VoLTE call at BT this week, oh and did you know VoLTE needs V6 to work - I can hear something ringing - no - it's not a phone - it's the killer app bell. ;) Sent from my iPad On 4 Sep 2014, at 18:47, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: On 4 Sep 2014, at 15:17, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Also I see IPV6 frustrating users where its been rolled out before it was ready which is something that's very bad. One could make the same comment about frustrated users because of NAT44, which is now the only way forward for all of the subscribers to service providers which don’t have a v6 plan by now. A
Re: [uknof] UK IPv6 Taskforce
I sometimes wonder if the larger, established ISPs, sitting on their old allocations of IPv4 addresses, have a vested interest in preserving the status quo since without a functioning IPv6, the lack of IPv4 space is a barrier to new competitors entering the market. I don't see a need to invoke any conspiracy theories. I hope people won't be offended if I give a highly simplified model of the participants in the Internet: end user(1) - access ISP(2) - transit ISP(3) - hosting ISP(4) - content provider(5) Now, only one of these groups is really feeling the pain of address depletion, and that's the access ISPs(2). Some feel that pain badly, and it's certainly true that there's no way you could enter the market as an access ISP in the UK given a /22 of address space. The hosting ISPs(4) also feel some pain - especially if they are doing things like VM hosting, one IP per instance. If you want to become the next Amazon EC2, you are not going to get far on a /22. But I'd say nobody else is affected by this problem. In particular, the content providers(5) have been sharing IP addresses for years (with HTTP virtual hosts, reverse proxies/load balancers, and CDNs). A /22 is plenty of space for a new content provider. So the first point to make is: if you want to throw subsidy money at the problem, you don't necessary want to do this to the access ISPs, but to everyone else. To be fair, the transit ISPs(3) have pretty much finished the rollout. Essentially it was just pasting some config into their routers. Now, what about the content providers? As it would be pretty simple for them to IPv6-enable, why don't they? To take a random example, why isn't www.bbc.co.uk reachable via IPv6? That's an organisation which is not short of either technical expertise or budget. I suspect the problem is finding a reason *for* them to turn on IPv6. Any website's users fall into these groups: (1) IPv4 only (2) IPv6 + IPv4, dual stack (3) IPv6 + NAT64/DNS64, maybe a few (4) pure IPv6 only, of which there are precisely zero By putting their content on IPv4, they reach all their users. By putting it on IPv6, they reach nobody else. Putting it on IPv6 carries some setup cost, and some risk, and some ongoing support cost. So where's the business case? Will they do it from the kindness of their hearts, just to help out the poor Access ISPs who are being squeezed? Here's another question: at what point will IPv6-only content start to appear? Won't that force access ISPs and end users to pick up IPv6? What content providers care about is getting to the maximum number of eyeballs. If they need an IPv4 address to do this they will get one, and even if that address costs $1,000 that's still cheap. They often pay many, many times more than this just to get an attractive domain name. Looking back in history, remember when websites stopped supporting IE5: it was when the proportion of IE5 users fell below about 1%. So I'd predict the same here: that is, content providers might put up IPv6-only content when IPv4-only users account for less than about 1% of their audience. Not all eyeballs are equally valuable: in some cases it might be when IPv4-only *business* users account for less than 1% of all *business* users. As for the end users, in general they don't know or care. They are using HTTP(S) for buying and selling stuff, and just want it to work. You may be a geek who wants to ssh into your fridge, but if so, you are not representative. And lastly, back to the the access ISPs. If they're the ones suffering the pain, shouldn't they be leading the way? Well, yes and no. Access ISPs only succeed at scale, working on miniscule margins in a cut-throat market, and have to minimise every cost. The tiniest increase in support calls will have a big impact on their bottom line. So if they have enough IPv4 addresses, and given they know all the content will be on IPv4 (see above), then unless their target market is geeks or gamers, they may be more profitable not deploying IPv6. All because IPv6 was not built as an extension to the Internet, but as a replacement for it :-( Regards, Brian.
