Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

From the collection of statistics you all provided, I can come to a conclusion that around an average of 40% of the world traffic became IPv6, which is still something we cannot depend on as if you compare the time since IPv6 was firstly deployed till now, I can expect that after +10 years we can come to 70 or 75% world-wide, during this time we will have blocks of IPv6 only and blocks of IPv4, which means the clear division.

That’s why looking into the transitions solutions became a mandatory or a peaceful solution such as IPv10 that will allow both version to coexist and communicate until the full migration. 

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 1:15 PM
To: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>; Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]>; IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Hi all,
Fred has formalized below something like 25% of the good White Paper!

There is one recent WP on IPv6 status: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_WP35_IPv6_Best_Practices_Benefits_Transition_Challenges_and_the_Way_Forward.pdf
Where some additional facts could be found.

Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: 25 сентября 2020 г. 0:45
> To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]>; IPv6 
> Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has 
> changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session 
> Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> 
> On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:57 AM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Maybe if you can provide me with all the statistics I need that 
> > shows the
> deployment so I can believe.
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> 
> Sure. I'm using a site that Eric Vyncke has put together and can discuss with you.
> He uses Google (Erik Kline), Akamai (Jared Mauch), and APNIC (George 
> Michelson/Geoff Huston) numbers; there are other services that publish 
> statistics, he just hasn't included them. As of this instant, Google 
> reports that requests that come to it from 73 countries exceed at 
> least 5% of its workload from that country, and traffic from 37 
> countries exceed 35% of its workload in that country. Its Eric's site, 
> but the data is from Google, and the site can get you to Akamai and APNIC data as well for the price of a mouse-click.
> 
> What I do is download the Google statistics, select the countries that 
> exceed some cut-off, and then ask Eric's or APNIC's site to display the data.
> 
> 5% cut-off
> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,de
> ,in 
> ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br,th,fi,mq,uy,gb,ec,ee,lk,ca,
> hu,ae,gp,re, 
> nl,tt,ie,au,nz,pe,sa,ga,bo,ro,at,gt,no,ph,cz,sg,il,mo,pl,ar,sx,tg,si,n
> p,mm,om,bt,k r,ke,fo,co,md,zw,cg,pr,is,lv,am,se,ru,li,jo,sk
> 
> 35% cut-off
> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,de
> ,in ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br
> 
> APNIC's display of its data on India is interesting 
> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN
> 
> If you scroll down, you will get a break-out by AS. APNIC reports that 
> customers from 12 ASs use IPv6 when accessing APNIC with 50%+ 
> probability ("ipv6- capable" and carrying that amount of data), and 
> given a choice of IPv6 or IPv4, most of them are "ipv6-preferred" (eg, 
> use IPv6 when given a choice). But about
> 50 ASs actually have users *using* IPv6 for some subset of their 
> workload. In a Financial Times blog a week or two ago, the chair of 
> India's IPv6 deployment task force argued that it should have an 
> IPv6-only DNS Root Server on the basis of its IPv6 deployment and 
> usage. I disagree with him (remarks available on request; they only 
> have 38 IPv6-capable root servers in country), but the basis for the argument was interesting.
> 
> I think the APNIC data is interesting because it crosses the backbone. 
> Google and Akamai run CDNs, which means that traffic can be between a 
> residential subscriber and its CDN server without materially touching 
> the ISP. APNIC runs no CDN, which means that traffic has to *also* 
> traverse the ISP and the backbone to APNIC - there is and end-to-end path across the backbone. Think about this:
> when a user accesses a service using IPv6 (or IPv4 for that matter), 
> the packet has to go from his computer, IOT device, or telephone to 
> the site in question and the response has to come back; there has to 
> be a complete end-to-end path in each direction. Miss one IPv6 
> connection in one direction, and it may as well be IPv4-only, because that's the only thing the end system will use.
> 
> From 73 countries, there is an end-to-end path of sufficient strength 
> that a significant proportion of data *can* traverse it using IPv6, 
> and the end system - which chooses whether to use IPv4 or IPv6 - will *choose* IPv6.
> 
> My search engine tells me "There are 195 countries in the world today. 
> This total comprises 193 countries that are member states of the 
> United Nations and 2 countries that are non-member observer states: 
> the Holy See and the State of Palestine." 37% of them, 73, have significant IPv6 usage.
> 
> Define "widely deployed"? I'll add "and used?" That's pretty wide, in my book.
> 
> What prevents this from being IPv6-only? Computers and network 
> equipment used by residential and enterprise subscribers have 
> supported both IPv4 and IPv6 for years. The most commonly used applications are quite happy with either.
> The issue I see is primarily enterprise lack of IPv6 adoption in its 
> customer-facing services. Even an "IPv6-preferred" site will use IPv4 
> when talking with something that will only use IPv4.
> 
> There is nothing proprietary here. Forward if you like.
> 
> >  From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:49 AM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
> > <evyncke=[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>; 
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re:
> > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request 
> > for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> >
> > Boy. If “millions and billions” isn’t wide deployment, maybe I need 
> > to go back
> to grammar school.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2020, at 4:18 PM, Khaled Omar 
> > <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > But none of these transitioning solutions are widely deployed, maybe 
> > it is IPv10 time ;-)
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> > From: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 1:05 AM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
> > <evyncke=[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>; 
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re:
> > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request 
> > for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> >
> > As noted before: RFCs 6052, 6146, 6147, 6877, 7915, and others 
> > comprise the
> solution deployed to literally hundreds of millions if not billions of 
> mobile devices and numerous access networks worldwide.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:24 AM Khaled Omar
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being
> solved?
> >
> > Network engineers everywhere, they are waiting for the announcement 
> > of an
> official robust solution to the depletion of the IPv4 address space 
> and the division that occurs recently on the Internet.
> >
> > People read the draft and many wrote about it because the idea is 
> > simple and
> requires no intervention from their side, that’s why I ask the IETF to 
> take the draft seriously and put personal benefits aside for now, as 
> LATER everything will back to normal, believe me, all are in need for this.
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 12:24 PM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Roland Bless <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
> > <evyncke=[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>; 
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re:
> > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request 
> > for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On Sep 17, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Khaled Omar
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the confusion, the community is curious about the idea, 
> > > many
> people support it as it solves the problem that they think they are not part of it.
> >
> > This statement has me a little confused. I see a lot of commentary, 
> > but I don’t see people commenting along those lines. I frankly see 
> > commentary similar to what I sent you declining a v6ops slot,
> >
> > Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being solved?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops