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

Sat Mar 24 16:06:21 CET 2007

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Nick Hilliard wrote:

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

imho, this is clearly an "s" -- undoubtably to keep. :-)

please see inline.

>> 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.

strongly agree. the bottom line is: when will serious fixing start?

>>> 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.

yes it is. but know that some regions have policies in place, the tunnel's 
end is somewhat closer for Europe. i.e. work to do... strong commitment to 
move on fast is needed.

>> 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.

possibly i'm not reading enough lately, but i don't see too much people 
sticking close to the 200-rule (or any other number's rule, btw).

>>> 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.

i guess nobody has a brilliant idea to make this evolve, nor to solve the 
same issue regarding other CPE types. :-(
unfortunately, we need to get more close to the point where getting v4 
addresses turns out to be really hard...

>> 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.

...are there any extensive testing results available?

> 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?

very, very, very few. while trying to choose a new home CPE i tried to 
look into www.ipv6ready.org, and the outcome wasn't really that great. 
then i suddenly had a problem with the old CPE and the urgency pushed me 
into quickly buying a linksys -- no v6 so far......

> 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?

i would place more of my hopes on the tech kids ;-)

>> 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.

that's true. but this can be changed over time (following real need...)

>> 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.

:-)))

>> 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.

nobody knows for real, at least in this side of the globe...... that doubt 
was what really started this thread in the first place....... ;-)

>> 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).

L2 ?

> 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.

any special reason? :-)

> 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.

i don't really understand why should we really strip out. as far as i'm 
concerned one of the few things going in the right direction is precisely 
the few services that deal with and properly use v6.....

>>> [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.

this will also allow them to gain some experience and confidence with the 
protocol version, and will eventually help opening doors (or should i say 
heavy castle gates...) in the sense of providing it to customers in the 
future.

> Nick

cheers,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Friac,as                                            See:
Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN)                      www.gigapix.pt
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional      www.ipv6.eu
Av. do Brasil, n.101                                       www.6diss.org
1700-066 Lisboa                                            www.geant2.net
Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167
www.fccn.pt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The end is near........ see http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
  "Internet is just routes (214049/730), naming (billions) and... people!"

Aviso de Confidencialidade
Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo
conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente
vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta
mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta
via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo
de imediato.

Warning
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee.
It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this
message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by
telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.