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

[hsyu <[e-mail]>]

Hi，Giuseppe, Paolo, 

Draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment is a good proposal, which will help promote the development of IPv6 in the world. After carefully reading the content of draft, I have a suggestion. Draft can also explain the current status of IPv6 deployment from an application perspective, because applications are the ultimate driving force for the development of IPv6. The applications I am talking about include video, gaming, social networking, finance, education, and so on.

https://maas.mail.163.com/dashi-web-extend/html/proSignature.html?ftlId=1&name=Haisheng+Yu%28Johnson%29&uid=hsyu%40cfiec.net&iconUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fmail-online.nosdn.127.net%2Fsm50a1433bca9fb284d4265d35e9ed54d3.jpg&items=%5B%22%22%2C%22hsyu%40cfiec.net%22%2C%22%22%2C%22%22%2C%22%22%5D" rel="nofollow">

https://mail-online.nosdn.127.net/sm50a1433bca9fb284d4265d35e9ed54d3.jpg">	Haisheng Yu(Johnson)
[e-mail]

签名由 https://mail.163.com/dashi/dlpro.html?from=mail81" rel="nofollow">网易邮箱大师 定制

On 3/24/2021 02:17，Alexandre Petrescu<[e-mail]> wrote：

Hi, Paolo,

Le 22/03/2021 à 16:12, Paolo Volpato a écrit :

Hi Alexandre,

Thanks for your feedback.

Looking at your first point, we agree that it is hard to say if
current 5G deployments get/require more from IPv6 rather than IPv4.

Maybe operators can say more on this. Concerning the draft, our idea
is to relax a bit the statement on the role of 5G as an incentive
(e.g. we could say something as "a possible incentive", in particular
for the coming deployments).

Your other point on the involvement of regulators is quite
interesting.

Probably a joint effort (I mean operators, vendors, research
organizations, etc.) may draw their attention to the work of IETF.

For example, on our side we have submitted a proposal for a speech at
the next RIPE meeting (IPv6 WG). Not sure about the audience,
hopefully some National regulators will attend. If so, we'll try to
engage them to have a first feedback.

I wonder whether a national telecommunications regulator from Italy goes
to RIPE meetings?

I will ask locally whether the national telecommunications regulator in
France (ARCEP) goes to RIPE meetings.

Alex

Anyway we are open to contribute to any further suggestions from the
WG.

Best regards

Paolo

-----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu
[mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021
11:43 AM To: Paolo Volpato <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] Cc: [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Giuseppe Fioccola
<[e-mail]> Subject: Re: Comments on
draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

I want to thank you for having recorded and re-posted by notes.

Le 17/03/2021 à 11:09, Paolo Volpato a écrit :

Dear WG,

Following on Ron’s message, we have listed here the comments
shared

during the discussion of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment  at the
past

v6ops session, trying to address them.

Please feel free to comment on; any feedback could be useful to
add

further considerations in the draft.

Alexandre**wondered if** 5G can be seen as a business motivator
for

IPv6, posing doubts on that. Actually, we too think 5G by itself
is

not the reason for that. From an application perspective, 5G can
be

seen as a framework to enable new apps or services (or even more
users

to use them) that may require more addresses. In this sense 5G
could

help the transition to an IPv6-only network.

In a sense I agree with you.

I think 5G deployments that can be planned in a very near term
feature great opportunities to add requirements for more IPv6.
'More' IPv6 means to have already the known IPv6 in the smartphone
and maybe IPv6 in the GTP, maybe a /63 instead of /64, etc.

Existing 5G deployments - I am not sure they do more IPv6 than 4G
deployments.  Actually I do not know.

(this is speculation:

It might be (from some testing a few monts ago) that some 5G
deployment does more IPv4 in the smartphone than IPv6, possibly with
some IPv4 publicly routable addresses that they kept at hand for
times to come.

It might be that this existing 5G deployment considers 5G to be
something very new and high performing connections that only very
expensive subscriptions can afford it (e.g. maybe at around 70
euros/month, 'un-throttled' bandwidth if I can say so).  In the past
it was very common that several operators gave IPv4 publicly routable
addresses for the expensive subscriptions, and IPv4 NAT for the less
expensive, 'normal' subscriptions at around 20Eur/month.

On another hand, it might also be that, from an IP addressing
perspective, 5G connections will be precisely like existing 4G and 3G
connections; in that sense they will feature the same IPv6 on the
smartphone that 4G and 3G do.

This might change as we speak, because precisely these days new 5G
deployments are announced where I live (Free and Orange), but I dont
know what they look like.  End of speculation.)

Michael noted that people active in the enterprise area were not

present. True: Nalini contributed greatly to version 01 of the
draft

while we worked more on other sections in version 02. We agree
that

more on enterprise can be shared.

**

Jordi provided an explanation for the unadvertised IPv4 addresses.
A

reason why we think more investigation is needed is that the

assumptions may all be true but don’t fully explain the trend. In
case

you missed the pointer, here you find the useful info:

https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2021-01/addr2020.html

<https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2021-01/addr2020.html>

<https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2021-01/addr2020.html

<https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2021-01/addr2020.html>>. The number
of

unadvertised addresses at Dec 2020 is around 50 /8 and it has grown
in

the last 3 years. Even considering the litigations, transfers,

quarantine, etc. it is hard to achieve that peak and, what it is

worse, doesn’t explain the constant growth. A large bunch of
addresses

in quarantine, when released, should cause some fluctuations, but

there are no clear signs for that.

Alexandre also observed the necessity to have a check tool to
verify

that IPv6 is really deployed when requested. Fully agree. Today it
is

hard to think of that but maybe in a near future that could be

possible. Is there any way to involve National regulators in our
work?

I think yes, there might be some ways.

From my part, when I talk to my regulator I understand that they
might not have enough ressources to get involved directly at IETF,
but I feel that they do monitor these discussions and might get help
from contributors.

I think that typical regulator activity is very much 'rooted' on
spectrum-, market-equality reasoning around a public good (like when
Baby Bells were born), and less in IP addressing, which is new, even
though it is as much a public good as air we breathe is.  Also 'net
neutrality', and 'services', are attractive domains for regulators,
if I understand correctly.

The questions I had to regulator about IPv6 and 5G licenses are
this:

- it's great that 'IPv6' is a pre-condition to granting a 5G
license,

but why only and too-shortly-said 'compatible to IPv6'?  Why is that

2-line paragraph so short when there are so many IETF RFCs that
could

be referred to tell what is expected from cellular networks with

respect to IPv6?

(the 2-liner in question is excerpt from the "19-1386.pdf" publicly

available and says:

"The owner is required to make her mobile network compatible with
the

IPv6 protocol starting December 31st, 2020", my translation of the

original in French:

"Le titulaire est tenu de rendre son réseau mobile compatible avec
le

protocole IPv6 à compter du 31 décembre 2020."

)

With such a short requirement I can imagine very well an operator
who

might put some IPv6 features in some parts of the network and still

leave the smartphone on IPv4-only.  Not from a bad intention, but
from

other strong requirements from other parts than from regulator (e.g.

hardware manufacturers, software writers, and others).

- what is the means to verify that an 'IPv6' pre-condition is
respected

after having granted a 5G license to an operator?  Currently I have
to

work very hard to identify whether this or that 5G deployment tests

'what is my IPv6 address' a 'yes' on google while the '5G' turned on

near the 5 bars of signal quality on smartphone screen.  This is an

end  user tool, but there should be something more authoritative
than

that.  For example, where I live there is a site called
cartoradio.fr

which can offer all the data necessary to tell whether some area has

5G or not; maybe it should add 'IPv6' to it.  Or maybe some other

check tool than cartoradio.

Such a verification tool is important, because it is known that in
the

rush for fast deployment other pre-conditions have not been (or have

been less) respected, for example when checking how much population
is

covered, or how much area, after a license is granted, etc.

Alex

Jen commented that having IPv6-only clients doesn’t imply a reason
to

deploy IPv6 (we assume in the underlay). Indeed; let us just echo
what

Fred said at the beginning of the session about pushing IPv6 more
in

the overlay. Probably we have achieved, for the first time, the

end-to-end availability of IPv6 content. We have IPv6 devices at
the

user’s side and IPv6-based content provided by content providers
often

based on an IPv6 DC infrastructure. This overlay is where services
are

offered and where the IPv6 customer base can be expanded. In
between

we have the networks (the underlay). A good move could be to turn
them

IPv6(-capable) but even if they stay IPv4, they can survive (even
if

it is not the optimal choice). The overlay offers more
possibilities.

Any further comment from the list is very much appreciated.

Paolo

*From:* v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]

<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
*On

Behalf Of *Ron Bonica *Sent:*

Monday, March 15, 2021 2:49 PM *To:* [e-mail]

<mailto:[e-mail]>

<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *Subject:* [v6ops]

draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Folks,

Each week between now and IETF 111, we will review and discuss one

draft with an eye towards progressing it.

This week, please review and comment

ondraft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment.

Fred and Ron

Juniper Business Use Only

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops