IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D751B1B29E1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ZijvXCeXS30I for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 06:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9A491B2A3D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 06:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hn18so10307251igb.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 06:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=GPtfIke/e8e/hUIdpsVv5X+YwUvBVQoW02g6GJDlPwA=; b=FS4K6DS64WY26UkYOPUdDU+lYy8d8wRQSdro0Q+aKL2imZLMStor74jTmdxanLqm8S CHo+XZu2KYW1zD5pwLM4A7T/ok+qYOXCri9LG6Q8qyPoGRb+X6zrLPULfZSfSqdcqIB0 Nd4dq6hlYfSUpCbaYzPv9vSvVOmKQicjAdmq7F118oCLPj0duFgbw6xMM9zDVn1YRchV ueuiqZdwmZ3zrnSpddh4y34/y+Cg5DtFgoKZaEIujimWDcLR7ZEPzQRJpAa6tb+dXTvP mMkhJ0OlYQL/No+yyDA0tEHll5EnZ/IkJg/pER0GC0UflJqoUbZnBIhUYaRpwGxt3fFj KH4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=GPtfIke/e8e/hUIdpsVv5X+YwUvBVQoW02g6GJDlPwA=; b=Ciz8B5oYtgAge/eQPr+f/qT98Dwc4AOSot8zrojhmXjvbKetvFni/6WlYZ/g3Mz0rN Top9ASqgSMZ9tMSTJwgge6p8/Ki2AADZOm1Xitj8/w3QSQE+7VgBhou0LYR/e5WVo1ZZ tfAgQRJo88YHDaKm4hAkdBlmez+LxucGtAoAfBzQL4ikJEe7XONluUcszvrD+dJAvWrv ZGM4VVRhXiKi1Nx6yWMQcQoA5z2+prcGkA6Uf58HElvf9iN6B9ppm+VHeCPKcs2rmLiV u3wf1j7Irm1uusIqsN2l9YcH9QP83ZetHrVgOTxognOP82Qedfyihgf3jgI2HX+7GS1V 0Jtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnxe1TIE/LG3Ib7bkMimSnbp62oDolj0xfDCNQEtsVoNdOZk6xfeSWH9gfiiUHOZVzZXQwd
X-Received: by 10.50.117.106 with SMTP id kd10mr28691856igb.5.1407417204005; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 06:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.5.6 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 06:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQJ3PXpGkk9Cd4d-MhExZ9QrpiseyAqPqmpXzQ-HCyDwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <4F7D76F6-BD81-453B-94DC-A3C3DFF68505@delong.com> <8600C096-37D0-4651-92C1-BCFDBA674433@nominum.com> <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com> <C5281716-DC04-42E6-AC82-0D53E5DA0284@nominum.com> <53E1236A.605@fud.no> <m1XEkJJ-0000BuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140805195402.GO51793@Space.Net> <m1XElwg-0000BbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D00834AF.68B6C%Lee@asgard.org> <CAD6AjGQJ3PXpGkk9Cd4d-MhExZ9QrpiseyAqPqmpXzQ-HCyDwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:13:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2=dMg6sua+9v28t173TQVYet6pDU7Xv6RWkbGjqA1ziA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0139fb627f0e76050009da9a"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Gd4JScyoRzP_4Vf8ftAKcVXiIJM
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:14:09 -0000

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >I think it is safe to say that providing good IPv4 service is the most
> > >important requirement. In many cases, it is perfectly fine to not
> provide
> > >any IPv6 if it cannot be provided at reasonable cost / performance.
> >
> > Is that safe to say?
>
> No.
>
> 20% of my subscribers are ipv6-only and for them the majority of the
> traffic is ipv6. For these subscribers, it is quantitatively most important
> that ipv6 works. Qualitatively, it is most important the most impactful
> services like facebook, google, and netflix work on ipv6.
>
Right. An operator cannot afford not to provide IPv4, because "that's not
Internet". But if the majority of traffic is IPv6, then the operator can
provide proportionally lower quality of service to IPv4 without disrupting
user experience.

A 4G handset with 464xlat will have ~50% of traffic native IPv6, ~45%
NAT64, and ~5% 464xlat. 464 conversion is lossy and brittle, but if it's
only used for 5% of traffic, then the operator might just say, "Who cares?
I don't; and if somebody else does, they're free to use IPv6."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email