Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,
Fred has formalized below something like 25% of the good White Paper!

There is one recent WP on IPv6 status: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_WP35_IPv6_Best_Practices_Benefits_Transition_Challenges_and_the_Way_Forward.pdf
Where some additional facts could be found.

Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: 25 сентября 2020 г. 0:45
> To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]>; IPv6
> Operations <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10
> draft (was Re: FW: v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> 
> On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:57 AM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Maybe if you can provide me with all the statistics I need that shows the
> deployment so I can believe.
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> 
> Sure. I'm using a site that Eric Vyncke has put together and can discuss with you.
> He uses Google (Erik Kline), Akamai (Jared Mauch), and APNIC (George
> Michelson/Geoff Huston) numbers; there are other services that publish
> statistics, he just hasn't included them. As of this instant, Google reports that
> requests that come to it from 73 countries exceed at least 5% of its workload
> from that country, and traffic from 37 countries exceed 35% of its workload in
> that country. Its Eric's site, but the data is from Google, and the site can get you
> to Akamai and APNIC data as well for the price of a mouse-click.
> 
> What I do is download the Google statistics, select the countries that exceed
> some cut-off, and then ask Eric's or APNIC's site to display the data.
> 
> 5% cut-off
> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,de,in
> ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br,th,fi,mq,uy,gb,ec,ee,lk,ca,hu,ae,gp,re,
> nl,tt,ie,au,nz,pe,sa,ga,bo,ro,at,gt,no,ph,cz,sg,il,mo,pl,ar,sx,tg,si,np,mm,om,bt,k
> r,ke,fo,co,md,zw,cg,pr,is,lv,am,se,ru,li,jo,sk
> 
> 35% cut-off
> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,de,in
> ,my,gr,yt,tw,gf,vn,ch,us,fr,mx,pt,jp,lu,br
> 
> APNIC's display of its data on India is interesting
> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN
> 
> If you scroll down, you will get a break-out by AS. APNIC reports that customers
> from 12 ASs use IPv6 when accessing APNIC with 50%+ probability ("ipv6-
> capable" and carrying that amount of data), and given a choice of IPv6 or IPv4,
> most of them are "ipv6-preferred" (eg, use IPv6 when given a choice). But about
> 50 ASs actually have users *using* IPv6 for some subset of their workload. In a
> Financial Times blog a week or two ago, the chair of India's IPv6 deployment
> task force argued that it should have an IPv6-only DNS Root Server on the basis
> of its IPv6 deployment and usage. I disagree with him (remarks available on
> request; they only have 38 IPv6-capable root servers in country), but the basis
> for the argument was interesting.
> 
> I think the APNIC data is interesting because it crosses the backbone. Google
> and Akamai run CDNs, which means that traffic can be between a residential
> subscriber and its CDN server without materially touching the ISP. APNIC runs no
> CDN, which means that traffic has to *also* traverse the ISP and the backbone
> to APNIC - there is and end-to-end path across the backbone. Think about this:
> when a user accesses a service using IPv6 (or IPv4 for that matter), the packet
> has to go from his computer, IOT device, or telephone to the site in question
> and the response has to come back; there has to be a complete end-to-end path
> in each direction. Miss one IPv6 connection in one direction, and it may as well
> be IPv4-only, because that's the only thing the end system will use.
> 
> From 73 countries, there is an end-to-end path of sufficient strength that a
> significant proportion of data *can* traverse it using IPv6, and the end system -
> which chooses whether to use IPv4 or IPv6 - will *choose* IPv6.
> 
> My search engine tells me "There are 195 countries in the world today. This total
> comprises 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations and 2
> countries that are non-member observer states: the Holy See and the State of
> Palestine." 37% of them, 73, have significant IPv6 usage.
> 
> Define "widely deployed"? I'll add "and used?" That's pretty wide, in my book.
> 
> What prevents this from being IPv6-only? Computers and network equipment
> used by residential and enterprise subscribers have supported both IPv4 and IPv6
> for years. The most commonly used applications are quite happy with either.
> The issue I see is primarily enterprise lack of IPv6 adoption in its customer-facing
> services. Even an "IPv6-preferred" site will use IPv4 when talking with something
> that will only use IPv4.
> 
> There is nothing proprietary here. Forward if you like.
> 
> >  From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:49 AM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> > <evyncke=[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re:
> > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request
> > for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> >
> > Boy. If “millions and billions” isn’t wide deployment, maybe I need to go back
> to grammar school.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2020, at 4:18 PM, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > But none of these transitioning solutions are widely deployed, maybe
> > it is IPv10 time ;-)
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> > From: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 1:05 AM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> > <evyncke=[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re:
> > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request
> > for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> >
> > As noted before: RFCs 6052, 6146, 6147, 6877, 7915, and others comprise the
> solution deployed to literally hundreds of millions if not billions of mobile
> devices and numerous access networks worldwide.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:24 AM Khaled Omar
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being
> solved?
> >
> > Network engineers everywhere, they are waiting for the announcement of an
> official robust solution to the depletion of the IPv4 address space and the
> division that occurs recently on the Internet.
> >
> > People read the draft and many wrote about it because the idea is simple and
> requires no intervention from their side, that’s why I ask the IETF to take the
> draft seriously and put personal benefits aside for now, as LATER everything will
> back to normal, believe me, all are in need for this.
> >
> > Khaled Omar
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 12:24 PM
> > To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Roland Bless <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> > <evyncke=[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re:
> > IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request
> > for IETF 109 - IPv10)
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On Sep 17, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Khaled Omar
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the confusion, the community is curious about the idea, many
> people support it as it solves the problem that they think they are not part of it.
> >
> > This statement has me a little confused. I see a lot of commentary,
> > but I don’t see people commenting along those lines. I frankly see
> > commentary similar to what I sent you declining a v6ops slot,
> >
> > Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being solved?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops