Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 31/03/2021 à 16:25, [e-mail] a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> from our experience the major challenge is not the network (we are 
> Dual Stack for more than ten years now) but the services and the end
>  devices the clients are running on. Even if large video/content 
> providers support IPv6 that does not necessarily results in IPv6 
> end-to-end. In many cases devices like SmartTVs are not IPv6 enabled
>  (e.g. if you use your laptop to stream Netflix transport will be 
> IPv6 but if you use your Smart TV you will only see IPv4).

I can agree.  My 3yr old smart tv does not have IPv6, so all its traffic
is IPv4.

Some recent Smart TVs do feature IPv6, including Samsung and Sony.
Those not on Android (e.g. Tizen OS for Samsung) do seem to support even
DHCPv6 clients.

A private report also tells that one would rather prefer to use IPv6 to
stream netflix rather than IPv4, whose paths are 'bufferbloated'.  One
can check how better netflix is on IPv6 than on IPv4 by looking with
https at fast.com.

This is not to say there are no problems, because there are still.  One
that concerns me is this /64 limit problem; this problem is also visible
with smart tvs in homes, just like it is visible with other IPv6 devices
in cars.

Alex

> 
> Regards
> 
> Nic
> 
> *Von:* v6ops <[e-mail]> *Im Auftrag von *Gyan Mishra 
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 31. März 2021 08:00 *An:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>  <jordi.palet=[e-mail]> *Cc:* [e-mail] 
> *Betreff:* Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
> 
> In theory if you flipped a switch and all fixed broadband and 
> wireless 4G/5G access layer providers all around the world banded 
> together and ditched CGN and turned up IPv4AAS and so now all 
> subscribers - all the billions of subscribers around the world are 
> now officially IPv6 only.
> 
> However let’s say this happened tomorrow but our web content and 
> traffic volume is still sitting steady at 15% IPv6 and 85% IPv4.
> 
> The needle would not have moved at all as we only fixed half the 
> problem.
> 
> We need to get all the web content to move to IPv6 and that’s an 
> problem of economics that we need to push the envelope on all web 
> content providers charge high for IPv4 premium $$ to incentivize 
> moving to IPv6 by forces of economy where money talks.
> 
> Gyan
> 
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:29 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
> <jordi.palet=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> I will say that the “long” and “unpredictable” time for IPv4aaS is an
> advantage, because you “stop” provisioning IPv4 now, so it is one 
> less problem to worry about.
> 
> You’re not longer worried about “how” much usage of IPv4 is done, 
> except for a single thing: reducing the number of IPv4 addresses in 
> the NAT64 (for example in the case of 464XLAT). You could even ignore
> that, but of course, it is good to reduce the number of IPv4 
> addresses if they are not used, because you can either transfer them 
> and get some money back or use in other parts of the network.
> 
> The question is: Do you prefer to ged rid off IPv4 as in many parts 
> of the network as possible sooner or later?
> 
> El 30/3/21 22:21, "v6ops en nombre de Gyan Mishra" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> en nombre de 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:34 PM Yannis Nikolopoulos <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/28/21 9:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Dual stack has no time limit
> (for us ISPs) it has, it painfully has, if your user base is still 
> growing
> 
> Gyan> I think to your POV there is a flip side as dual stack is 
> simple and easy cannot get any simpler than that, however the 
> downside is the process of deployment can be painfully slow but it 
> all depends. If you are provisioning 1000s of sites for dual stack 
> that still can be done with ZTP even with complex DMVPN or other 
> overlay topologies dual stacked still not difficult.  I think 
> whenever manual configuration comes into play and you have even a 100
> sites or devices that can be painful and lengthy process.
> 
> There are definite tradeoffs.
> 
> Dual stack is less complexity but then you have IPv4  provisioning 
> and numbering plan so you could say that in itself is complex.
> 
> If it’s fixed broadband BNG or 4G/5G mobile the drawback as well with
> dual stack is IPv4 addressing numbering plan but having to maintain
> configuration for both IPv4 and IPv6 could be considered complex,
> even though the dual stack process is as simple as it gets.
> 
> With IPv4 AAS the attraction could be the minimum configuration 
> footprint number of lines of config.
> 
> Learning curve yes for operators but you could say that for any 
> technology their is a learning curve.
> 
> I think the bigger deal for operators is how long the timeframe to 
> maintain IPv4AAS is a bigger factor as that could be decades and it 
> could be almost like a permanent solution.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
> --
> 
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
> 
> *Gyan Mishra*
> 
> /Network Solutions Architect /
> 
> /Email [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>/
> 
> /M 301 502-1347/
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
> 
> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you 
> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 
> <http://www.theipv6company.com> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents 
> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
> --
> 
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
> 
> *Gyan Mishra*
> 
> /Network Solutions Architect /
> 
> /Email [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>/
> 
> /M 301 502-1347/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>