Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Mon, 27 December 2010 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95D43A6882 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 03:04:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.337
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_PRODUCT=0.333]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oKRmTVpRHVAE for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 03:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BD93A6873 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 03:04:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4FEF8512 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:06:51 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ADD4F8511 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:06:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 20114 invoked by uid 1007); 27 Dec 2010 12:06:51 +0100
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:06:51 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Message-ID: <20101227110651.GI3695@Space.Net>
References: <20101226105047.GG3695@Space.Net> <C93D729F.17107%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="agiWCrAZ2JOwsdBK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C93D729F.17107%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: v6ops v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:04:51 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:30:55PM +1100, Hesham Soliman wrote:
> > We run a full dual-stacked backbone and office network, and are working
> > on getting all the Internet facing servers to be dual-stacked - but for
> > the access customers (eyballs), the move to dual-stack has been extremely
> > slow in the last 13 years, and it's hard to believe that this is going to
> > change all of a sudden.
> 
> => Do you have IPv6 access natively? 

Yes, sure.

> I would guess that until you dual stack
> your servers and allocate IPv6 addresses to those end systems you won't see
> much traffic on IPv6. 

As I said: all our backbone and office networks are dual-stacked, and we're
working on the servers - some are already done, and to some intranet servers
we already see >90% of the traffic being IPv6 (which is not overly surprising).

> Lets face it, there is nothing IPv6 on the Internet now. 

Well, there are some high-profile sites already (heise.de, vg.no) - but
those are dual-stacked, of course, as IPv6-only does not make sense to
do for content.

Which means that there still is no compelling reason for the access to go
to dual-stack.

> But my point is that this will gradually happen and being DS'ed makes
> you ready for a slow but reliable transition where apps won't suffer.

The problem is: while DS is nice in theory, there is no reason why 99% of
the Internet "eyeballs" would *want* to go there.  This is what we have
come to understand some years ago, when our IPv6 product offering didn't
sell as we expected.

Those that have IPv4 can reach everything they need with IPv4, so there
is no big incentive to add DS.

Those that do not have IPv4 can't run dual-stack (they will have to do
NAT64 or DS-Lite to access IPv4-only content).

So there will be a move from IPv4 to IPv6 (for pressure on the eyeball
side where no more IPv4 is available), but whether it will be "dual-stacked"
will be seen.  I think there's lots of good arguments for Cameron's
approach (and I strongly hope that Apple and Android will wake up soon
and provide IPv6 on the 3G side of their mobiles).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279