RE: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> Wed, 19 February 2020 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7F8120111 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:51:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PTZOcajC9UmQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR05-DB8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db8eur05olkn20800.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:7e1a::800]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01EF7120072 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:50:56 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=g7QYHUaiLKVoXIdiLucMb3PrlAj4YlrF5OeW6dz7MDTnErsgJYqtSQ5i/Or+s3mfjxkrfZPV+/5bG2P3f6ETWN7j9oWZOdhm1uW0cc6J++9wueYTdUY5Bg22BScUBbyHHFg13hfyzXp3VUbTGkxuOPy3d6GI7d6mThsRxa14TUz+DG0u6dmPwu7NK0pHDiAnFPK6meL6aOGzWWLyQwXxDD0EoWoBYC+e1wgbaI8SiV9BoikhMcGCHLIWpDJDdnct+fp+dIltwdDkVLW3O0f+fipE1nuhAX05hbY7yVw1yU3dK8NrafaO1YgxOX8cCRYAYxu3bwdHPO8UQmufDzuq4Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e8MHwdBK9rEjh9B+x73l+XzTRYYIeBzt5Zop+a7tEeM=; b=c1rV8PtLSCkUkfxH0MFk/hgrZocFttGDa9VQoKVMnIhbxYj5WA9shfwZIkwJVceHTB9P1Lydjia6c8/oxbfVNQSWieXRrxPOJQ8OHMfEwznGfnsZpdHJJY3FjQT+qPSsIuvLp7hO667VJTP7Ax82OqcsJH2qPO/WtMx7hq465MFS4ITI0kbTwNaTL4bno70WM1SsYWjRwJcbuSdlBNiz5k/8ZVgA0D1q59bYUisufVwLwgxeremIve9x+HwePrrm6NDMfJ5G/q848C+AG6fUig1DOsCgP+ZuyrXWkaHLV7PA1c3j5CsYvCM5+1p1aWgNdAyZVJPPAxXK+5EYHZFSww==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e8MHwdBK9rEjh9B+x73l+XzTRYYIeBzt5Zop+a7tEeM=; b=dPrRT/w5eCxaMt8MiQVoocT52Ws7s1cYW6V1FuEqwCkGmF4jkylkfWhS8zBwdBZ8KlTSdAXY89XbGlWd6tv5GIQMNf9HdNtpkjHkK3Hmb+cy8zafRH32SXQrRSAoREH28XrJ0PG0DQPMPkUonhrb8Vs7dsuqirc7SzDvhj9MdGBUnZkfJIPfATCUUyiPsR6W5dHpLFJu5AKqFmzOxO7rwEloakI2hoPssoNkGuyfx8F2fa1LiJvQ71MxHR8sYNkhG/haBlHqQFPAvvYgQhNRWlpdnKhd6j4N8Ai5Us66Kh120zwwHXaodRTdKFNbJkcMwd3SpcwooxURab2J+Z630g==
Received: from DB8EUR05FT056.eop-eur05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc0f::3b) by DB8EUR05HT085.eop-eur05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc0f::102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2729.22; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:50:54 +0000
Received: from PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.233.238.52) by DB8EUR05FT056.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.233.238.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2729.22 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:50:54 +0000
Received: from PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::b428:e305:c763:c9a3]) by PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::b428:e305:c763:c9a3%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2729.032; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:50:54 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
To: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
CC: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
Thread-Topic: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
Thread-Index: AdXnL4CMqKHMj241QNOLcaD05q7rXAAFTlYAAAFd+RAAAorKAAAAL5oA
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:50:54 +0000
Message-ID: <PR3P194MB084377C2F7094BDFE05A3A88AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAL9jLab3GN5eEwbC1cHQkG9onUn5rry7OMykQ7MiRGo90TKizg@mail.gmail.com> <PR3P194MB08432397118C0AB443EC7611AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAKC-DJjJbq_pD4uX75gBSEDzgtH8inVx8eh9FLqbYF6ikzcU=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJjJbq_pD4uX75gBSEDzgtH8inVx8eh9FLqbYF6ikzcU=w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:82343F5113CFB2A23793CAE708855C087F7F835166BE75113B0FCD2CE65D1199; UpperCasedChecksum:D447048EE14B1AC1E452ABD3E852A9FBB66596173CFDC52AEEC59982EF552E6C; SizeAsReceived:7173; Count:45
x-tmn: [j89GUtp8SBq/Hmbig0J3fySBIXpXmFmF]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 45
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8284a697-cbeb-4fa8-65b0-08d7b56ca668
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB8EUR05HT085:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: rgqmsSa74iuVvzBCg6j33i5SRapSMzjXG2342vKw+D0R4nKbTQEKcRqZ/v9gzwBJQwrMDPPUg7zC++CVleS4fbELNq25OQ2SqhP3KD0+zms6eHU9X5qTgFz8kuBEEbXfAKVCgOpJOmmAe8HsRYkAPAZI01XiAy/J72GwSpcGUW2oIf413vgXaSEempxCtozDNAqyQBMFGURqs15Sdk2AwKHVduiTh/QOKS6cytuSXQA=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 3wwldpe7uDgEKoSDL/xH3zw7hz/fOvjGOAXK2P3Ip+pVh58SJB3nxSrKoIDeS21n0W4i7likU9brEcKSxzm0hAQkuSVnsOljvwq6dNOhprGKzdZvzIiprm5wvMFLfFFBKMIycMWbG68JSaObVpzotw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_PR3P194MB084377C2F7094BDFE05A3A88AE100PR3P194MB0843EURP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8284a697-cbeb-4fa8-65b0-08d7b56ca668
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Feb 2020 18:50:54.7984 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB8EUR05HT085
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GgkmyPehrYsqrnlR4zJhANbecWc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:51:02 -0000

Ok, I think I got the answer for my question, don’t want to waste your time.

Waiting and watching for a better solution to be applied practically.

Khaled Omar

From: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:43 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>om>; IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

It really is a composite story of individual ISPs, devices, and content.
Some stats I published two years ago from the perspective of one CDN:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2018/06/six-years-since-world-ipv6-launch-entering-the-majority-phases.html

and things have grown since.  For example, Akamai just peaked at 21 Tbps of global IPv6 traffic delivered:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2020/02/at-21-tbps-reaching-new-levels-of-ipv6-traffic.html

During a peak like that, some large countries and customers
can see a majority of traffic being IPv6.  You can see some of the wide
variation between ISPs here:
  https://www.akamai.com/us/en/resources/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-report/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp#networks

(There are also a few consumer electronics devices holding the numbers down
in large residential networks.)

         Erik




On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>> wrote:
>> these numbers are ~2yrs old... but 25% is not "almost nobody".

Actually, devilations in percentages makes things worse, some think it is 25% others think it is 30% others think no IPv6 at all :) and all these percentages are incorrect because only one thing can make it clear, to find an official solution announced for everybody stating that what should we do in such situation.

Best Regards,

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.lists@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 6:51 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:28 AM Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>> wrote:

>
> From what I see in the real world, IPv4 still dominating and almost nobody started using IPv6, and also, I didn’t find any solution applied practically in today’s networks for this issue.
>

I don't think it's accurate to say: "almost nobody started using ipv6"

https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/state-of-ipv6-deployment-2018/

these numbers are ~2yrs old... but 25% is not "almost nobody".