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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
>> 
>