++ytti
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Lähettäjä:* Michael Thomas via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org>
*Lähetetty:* Friday, June 20, 2025 4:33:11 PM
*Vastaanottaja:* nanog@lists.nanog.org <nanog@lists.nanog.org>
*Kopio:* Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com>
*Aihe:* Re: IPv6 native percentage (end user perspective)
It's sort of surprising that providers haven't used v6 as a marketing
tool. There is some new stupid Xfinity ad about Wifi going kaboom or
something that makes about zero sense, but honestly most eyeball
networks are differentiating themselves mostly on nothing at all (cf:
"kaboom"). v6 actually does give a direct path from host to server
without the network complexity which is good for latency, etc. So they
could actually visualize it as a network with a NAT Goridan Knot in the
middle that their new-fangled upgrade -- ipv6 -- chops in half to
unleash the true speed potential. Or something.
The point is that bits are pretty much commodities, so prettier looking
packaging is probably what a lot of this reduces to. Heck, you could
even have partner programs that tout the content providers who work with
your new tech (::snort:: 30 year old "new"). For the ones who've already
upgraded, it's free publicity as well.
Mike, forgive my lack of caffeine
On 6/19/25 11:58 PM, jordi.palet--- via NANOG wrote:
> That’s why IPv6-only with IPv4aaS makes sense instead of dual-stack.
>
> You don’t need to run dual-stack in most parts of the network, but
the customers have dual-stack in their LANs. You don’t care anymore
about if customers or destinations are IPv4, IPv6 or dual-stack. All
become transparent to you.
>
> Moreover, if your customers are mainly residential, you will find
that typically 85% of your traffic is going to CDNs or content
providers that are already IPv6-enabled, so your NAT64 traffic will be
much lower than the actual CGN traffic, and will go even lower with
the time.
>
> Waiting for 100% of the content providers to be IPv6 ready will not
work, always someone will be still lost in the IPv4, and for sure you
don’t want to get helpdesk calls complaining about that if you switch
to IPv6-only (without IPv4aaS).
>
> The issue is to have the right CPEs or CPE firmware that supports
IPv6-only with IPv4aaS. Some vendors still need much more customers
pressure to offer that. An alternative is of course open source, which
is available for both the CPE (OpenWRT) and the NAT64 (Jool). We have
done that for several customers and zero issues.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>> El 20 jun 2025, a las 7:46, Forrest Christian (List Account) via
NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> escribió:
>>
>> Which is why I asked the original question.
>>
>> My intent is not to never move to IPv6, it's just that we're in no
rush to
>> do so. Note that we've had IPv6 on-network with our own address space
>> since 2008. It just hasn't expanded much beyond our core due to
various
>> challenges and a lack of financial incentive to do so.
>>
>> If nearly 100% of the content providers were reachable via IPv6
today. I'd
>> likely have already been switched. If that number were still in the
>> almost-zero category, I wouldn't even consider migrating to IPv6, other
>> than in the core and niche cases that we've been running since we
started
>> experimenting with it 18 years ago.
>>
>> At some point, the incremental cost of adding the necessary hardware to
>> support NAT for IPv6-only customers to access the legacy IPv4
internet will
>> be low enough that it will make sense for us to deploy it. At that
point,
>> I won't see any reason to continue deploying IPv4 for new
customers, and it
>> will become our legacy protocol. We're certainly getting closer
to this
>> threshold. I don't know what that threshold is, but we are getting
closer
>> and closer to it. I do know it's going to be well before the internet
>> shuts off IPv4.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 8:45 PM Adam Fathauer <a...@arfmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What happens when a customer tries to connect to a ipv6 only resource?
>>>
>>> I routinely hear the argument that “we have plenty of v4 space
left”, but
>>> what about the folks at the other end?
>>>
>>> If you wait until then, you’ll either start loosing customers or
have to
>>> scramble to accommodate v6 then. Much better to do it slowly on
your terms.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From "Forrest Christian (List Account) via NANOG"
<nanog@lists.nanog.org>
>>> To "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog@lists.nanog.org>
>>> Cc "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <li...@packetflux.com>
>>> Date 6/19/2025 6:05:12 PM
>>> Subject Re: IPv6 native percentage (end user perspective)
>>>
>>> Just to provide some perspective from my viewpoint:
>>>
>>> I can run dual-stack. But I don't want to, at least for a specific
>>> customer. I want a particular customer to be IPv4 or IPv6, with an
>>> eventual transition to 100% IPv6.
>>>
>>> I don't want to restart the recurring argument, but I'll just put
this out
>>> there: Why bother adding the cost of supporting a dual-stack
network when
>>> there is precisely zero cost for me to stick with IPv4? From a cost
>>> perspective, if I have to assign everyone an IPv4 address and an IPv6
>>> address to deploy IPv6, why would I bother assigning the IPv6
address? I
>>> have plenty of addresses to continue handing out IPv4 addresses
directly to
>>> customers for at least several years, so there is no benefit to me in
>>> adding the overhead of dealing with both IPv6 and IPv4 on a
per-customer
>>> basis simultaneously.
>>>
>>> However, I'm willing to migrate (over several years) to an IPv6-only
>>> network and run a CGNAT box to access IPv4, but only once the cost of
>>> running the CGNAT box becomes negligible. Once that occurs, I want
to start
>>> getting ahead of the curve and set up a CGNAT box, then begin
offering only
>>> IPv6 to new customers.
>>>
>>> Of course, the size and cost of the CGNAT device are directly
related to
>>> the flows and/or bandwidth, which is why I was curious about the
>>> percentages. If it's 10% IPv6, then I'm not close to where I need
to be.
>>> If it's 95%, then I can (and should) start moving to IPv6.
Somewhere in
>>> the middle is the threshold, not quite sure where that number is.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 3:24 PM Mark Andrews via NANOG <
>>> nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You are asking the wrong question.
>>>
>>> Switching on IPv6 doesn’t require you to switch off IPv4. You can
but you
>>> don’t have to. I find it sad that ISPs still think IPv4 and IPv6 are
>>> mutually exclusive. Nobody is asking for people to switch off
IPv4. They
>>> are only asking that you enable IPv6 so they can reach you without
having
>>> to run the traffic though a CGN 44 or 64.
>>>
>>> For most eyeball networks the majority of your traffic will be
IPv6 the
>>> moment you turn IPv6 on as most of the large content providers
offer IPv6
>>> and implementations prefer IPv6.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> --
>>> Mark Andrews
>>>
>>>> On 20 Jun 2025, at 06:13, Forrest Christian (List Account) via
NANOG <
>>> nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
>>>> I see numerous statistics from Google and similar sources that
indicate
>>> the
>>>> percentage of end users who are IPv6 native. What I'm missing are
>>>> statistics going the other way - what percentage of sites (or
endpoints
>>>> that customers regularly connect to) are IPv6-native, from a total
>>> traffic
>>>> perspective?
>>>>
>>>> That is, if I switch to IPv6 on my eyeball network, how much of my
>>> existing
>>>> traffic will I have to CGNAT in some way to reach the IPv4-only
network?
>>>>
>>>> We have sufficient IPv4 address resources to stick with IPv4 for the
>>>> foreseeable future. However, at some point, the percentage of traffic
>>>> using IPv6 becomes so high that the reasons not to move become less
>>>> significant. For example, the CGNAT box becomes significantly
smaller,
>>> as
>>>> most of the traffic should flow around it on IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> - Forrest
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NANOG mailing list
>>>>
>>>
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/ZWNAGD3GM6VKKNBE3QE5HHRJ26C4UXJF/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NANOG mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>>
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/A75BIETJQDTWUGEZQWSGKNE2L5SQPNHZ/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Forrest
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NANOG mailing list
>>>
>>>
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/FKFUZUB57MSQ7PNRVE5IUKTJL345WEET/
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> - Forrest
>> _______________________________________________
>> NANOG mailing list
>>
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NLEG5VLBTJOXTQEZ5B3BTBPHY6C2DN4I/
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/ZVYKHGCUYM7JJTCJLNQ75U6DOVR3NXEN/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/HFBDSWGNSLIM25TNIM7BLFUPEVQPZNP4/
