Why not IPv6 yet (Re: IPv6 traffic data in Asian networks?)

[Nick Hilliard]

[apologies in advance for another long-winded email - feel free to press "d"]

> The main reason for the degraded connectivity is simple, they don't have
> an anycasted IPv6 deployment yet, while for IPv4 they do.

The main reason that I see is bad global v6 connectivity.  Things like 
european traffic being routed through sprint's v6 infrastructure in the US, 
and so forth.  It's a little like the ipv4 internet in the early 90's, i.e. 
traffic going all over the place and really not ready for prime time.

>> And we're talking about the merits of enabling AAAA for the
>> top most visited sites in the world?  How crazy is that?
> 
> Not so crazy as there are enough networks which have already done it and
> they are not seeing any issues at all.
> 
>> We also still have no v6 PI.
> 
> We don't? http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/v6-end-user.txt

So, as a european v6 user, can I request ipv6 PI space from ARIN?

I'm on address-policy-wg at RIPE too, and am aware of Jordi's proposal. 
But it's not there yet, and as a result generic end-users in the EME region 
cannot get v6 pi space.

Large corporates are not going to deploy ipv6 unless ipv6 PI is in place. 
It's not the only stumbling block for them, but it's certainly one.

> That the RIPE region can't formulate a proper way tsja. Apparently the
> only push at the moment is to throw out the 200 rule and giving
> everybody who wants then a /32, not because they need it, but because it
> is more fun to do, or something silly which I still don't understand.

Personally, I think that the 200 rule is silly on the grounds that I see no 
reason that all LIRs shouldn't have an automatic entitlement to an IPv6 
block.  But that's not relevant to this mailing list, so let's not argue 
about it here.

>> We have virtually no v6 on the last mile, and even less on the CPE side of things.
> 
> DOCSIS 3.0 is coming soon (they claim),

That's great that we'll soon have a cable protocol capable of ipv6.  And 
how long is the roll-out time going to be for this?  What's the expected 
life-time of cable devices?  Subtract that from 2012, and how much time is 
there left before cable modems need to implement reliable ipv6 support? 
Not much.

> for the rest DSL can do native
> IPv6 (I have it already for 2 years or so), there is PPPv6 which works
> fine according to quite a number of ISP's too. In the Asian region there
> are a lot of services.

I haven't looked recently, but last time I looked, there were all sorts of 
problems in dealing with ipv6 over DSL.  Some were related to using C10k 
hardware.   Others were related to just really stupid LNS bugs. Let's not 
pretend that ipv6 DSL support is on a parity with ipv4, because it isn't.

Nor is this the main stumbling block.  The CPE devices just don't generally 
support it.  For example, take a look at the following:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Awww.netgear.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Awww.linksys.com

How many other bulk produced CPE devices have native ipv6 support?  How 
many have good support for triple play stuff like v6 multicast?  How many 
will do out of the box ipv6, with no trouble at all?

Jeroen, I had native ipv6 over DSL 18 months ago too.  So long as I enabled 
my pppv6 client properly and changed my login domain to the provider's ipv6 
box.  And so long as I jammed my dsl modem into bridging mode. And it was 
on a unix box, because windows didn't support pppv6 at the time.  How many 
moms and pops are going to do that?

 > See: http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native for a long list.

I see a list of 11 providers in Europe who appear to support native ipv6. 
  I would call that a savage indictment of v6 uptake.

There are more providers that I know about who aren't listed there.  But 
let's be clear, it's not a widely available protocol.

> If your last mile doesn't support it, then you can always go to the
> fellows from Hexago and get a cool transition box. And of course there
> is always SixXS who can help you out. Lastly, 6to4 + Teredo and never
> forget: ISATAP.

Did I mention something about string and gum networking and over-reliance 
on tunnels and relays?  Maybe I didn't, but - just in case I didn't state 
it before - this is mickey-mouse networking.  It is not suitable for large 
scale production service.

>> [..] There is no commercial requirement for it

> For a lot of companies there is a HUGE commercial requirement.
> This is a global list, which means there are a lot of people on the list
> who also have business in the US. That means they are doing work for the
> US Government, who give them a lot of money. If your network toy doesn't
> play along with IPv6 you don't get that money. Is that a big enough
> commercial requirement for you? There are other examples too of course.

Well, this is clearly the reason for the massive uptake of ipv6 in the US. 
   And also the reason that the OSI stack took off so spectacularly well.

The ipv6 mandates for both the USG and the US DoD are well known, and have 
been in place for many years now, with no appreciable impact.  Maybe things 
are a little different in Japan and China, I don't know.

> Also, even though this is not the case there are a lot of networks who
> don't treat IPv6 as a toy part of their network, maybe you do, a lot of
> operators don't. Thanks to all the people who DO care btw!

I don't treat it as a toy part of the network.  As an IX operator, I'm 
contractually bound to ensure that it works as well as ipv4 (which, 
incidentally, is impossible given current C65k layer 2 support for v6).

And as an IX operator, I have a pretty good idea about how much native ipv6 
traffic passes over INEX.  Sadly, now that my office NTP server no longer 
uses ipv6, v6 traffic levels have decreased substantially.

This isn't a unique experience; if you strip out v6 usenet newsfeeds at 
AMS-IX, you'll see a proportionally dispiriting level of v6 traffic.  In my 
humble opinion, this indicates that there is no commercial requirement for 
ipv6, but feel free to disagree.

 >>[comcast talk]
> Ehmm.. clearly you don't know WHY they are going to deploy it ;)
> Not for the enduser, but for their own management infrastructure [...]

You'll note I didn't state or imply that they were provisioning v6 for 
end-users.  This doesn't invalidate the fact that it's still the only good 
justification for ipv6 that I've yet come across.

Comcast's attitude it the correct attitude though.  All of the future 
networking and CPE device providers must have very support for ipv6. 
Otherwise, they will not be considered as part of their tender process.

Nick