Re: [v6ops] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:06 AM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In message <CABcZeBPNpfRv8KGbHfEp7DXoDNKC6K1kdBX7PEEjxTPQY-gfcA@mail.
>>> gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla writes:
>>> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> That's reasonable, I suppose, but (a) not everyone is on mobile and
>>> (b)
>>> > >>> the endpoint's interests may not align with yours.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Those factors are in no way specific to mobile networks.
>>> > >>> IPv4 addresses and NATs cost money for everyone. Stateless
>>> translation
>>> > >>> doesn't use NAT, but because it's stateless, port space has to be
>>> assigned
>>> > >>> in advance, so it consumes more IPv4 space than stateful
>>> translation.
>>> > >>> Public IPv4 to users is already infeasible for new entrants, and
>>> will be
>>> > >>> infeasible in the sort to medium term incumbents.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I don't see any cheaper alternative than IPv6. Do you?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> As I said, the endpoints have different incentives, namely to get
>>> the
>>> > >> best performance for their users.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> If IPv4 and IPv6 paths are equally fast for the user, then delaying
>>> > >> attempts to connect v4 in cases where v4 resolves first makes the
>>> user's
>>> > >> experience slower.
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > Sure, but my question was about cost. Perhaps we agree that in the
>>> long
>>> > > term IPv6 is cheaper, even if we don't agree that it's better.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I wasn't trying to answer your question. My concern is the suitability
>>> of
>>> > the recommendations this document makes and the rationales that it
>>> provides
>>> > for them.
>>> >
>>> > -Ekr
>>>
>>> Having IPv4 traffic increases the cost for the ISP and in turn the
>>> customers.
>>>
>>
>> I applaud your allegiance to econ 101 marginal cost pricing, but
>> I'm skeptical that in practice the need to do IPv4 is an important
>> contributor to the price experienced by customers. Do you have
>> some data that shows that this is true?
>>
>>
>> Not preferencing IPv6 makes it much harder to determine when to
>>> turn off IPv4 altogether and to leave IPv4 as a service to third
>>> parties to provide like HE.NET have provided IPv6 as a service for
>>> lots of people over the last decade and a bit.
>>>
>>> If you don't preference IP6 you end up with 50% IPv4 and 50% IPv6
>>> and having to support IPv4 as a service for ever.  You also end up
>>> having to maintain both IPv4 and IPv6 servers.
>>
>>
>> I think this paragraph well reflects the problem I am noting, in that it
>> conflates the various entities involves in the transaction. By my count,
>> in two sentences you have used "you" to refer to at least three entities:
>>
>> - The end-user's devices which do the preferencing
>> - The ISPs who offer IPv4 and/or IPv6 service
>> - The server operators who have to maintain various kinds of servers
>>
>> Each of these entities have different incentives. As I noted in my initial
>> e-mail, absent evidence that v6 is directly better for the end-use [0]
>> these
>> parameters seem chosen because of some belief that we should be
>> prioritizing IPv6 for some larger reason, even if it temporarily makes
>> matters slightly worse for users.
>>
>
> I think we are in bike shed area, but i am fine with saying that ipv6 is
> better and preferred for network operators in terms of cost and scalability
> and keep the end users out of it. I think those benefits are obvious (cgn
> cost on v4 vs no cgn on v6)
>
> I have deployed ipv6 to 10s of millions of users because it was the best
> decision for our business and network, and it is great that customers
> largely have no idea we did.  End users dont know or care about v6.
>
> End users are just one stakeholder in this ecosystem and optimizing just
> for their metrics is a suboptimzation for the larger internet we are trying
> to shepherd here.
>

I agree that we need to look at the bigger picture, but that also involves
acknowledging that we are potentially asking the users t do something less
good for them.

-Ekr


>
> That's a reasonable position -- though
>> not one I personally subscribe to -- and I agree that it's a WG decision
>> how to select the constants, but I think the document needs to explain
>> the rationale. The original text really isn't sufficient here, and while I
>> can live with Tommy's text, it doesn't actually seem that consistent
>> with the arguments being advanced in that threat.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>> [0] The data Lorenzo presents seems ambiguous at best.
>>
>>
>>
>>> This document is still has too much bias towards IPv4 in it.  It
>>> doesn't leave enough time for a single DNS request to get to the
>>> other side of the world and back when there is a cache miss for the
>>> AAAA lookup and a cache hit for the A lookup before attempting the
>>> IPv4 connection.  It assumes there will be either cache hits for
>>> both or cache misses for both.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> --
>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW+2117,+Australia&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>