Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 18.02.15, 00.29, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com wrote: Ragnar, what do you expect will get your network to move IPv6-only eventually? You likely won't still be running native IPv4 in 2030. How will you get there? Very good question, Lorenzo. I am actually not sure yet, but I know we will have to deal with IPv4 traffic for many years to come. IPv4 will not wither and fade away anytime soon, as many will use the addresses in their walled gardens and datacenters. One of the hurdles we have to overcome, is all the people how still do not understand what IPv6 is, and why we must use it. I am still meeting decision makers who don't think IPv6 is important or will worry about that later. Due to these people, IPv4 will unfortunately still be around for some time. And as an ISP, we need to make services that delivers the services the customer demands, and as long as any of these services require some sort of P2P like protocols, i.e. gaming consoles, we will supply it. So I guess what I am saying is that as long as someone needs to use the road, we will maintain it. The definition of need is the difficult issue, and we as a community must continue to make IPv6 relevant, and help strongly in the migration of services towards IPv6. I still see many new projects that are not designed to work over IPv6, and I think the major efforts must focus on IoT and devices. A quick example; A good friend of mine is developing a smart fireplace which can be controlled via API's. He do use a 3. party development company to make the controller and API's. They did not even think of IPv6 until I did my 5 minute speech about the importance of it. This clearly shows that even if ISP's and content providers are moving forward and doing their share, we still have all the inventors and manufacturers which do not think of it at all. Nathalie Trenaman's project clearly show the lack of IPv6 support in devices. And as long as these guys don't get it, I am sorry to say that we as an ISP still needs to do some sort of IPv4. Yes, most of these services will work just fine on MAP/CGN/lw4o6 but some will not. So the question will then be, are here to earn money by serving the customers what they need/want, or should we ignore that and just be ideologic and say No IPv4 for you…? However, at one point we need to say, IPv4 is no longer something that is required by select a sensible number% of our customer, so we will start to do MAP/CGN/lw4o6. This is a discussion going on internally, and at one point we will make the decision to do something other than native IPv4. I think we will see this change in about 2 to 4 years, but that will require us to continue to promote and discuss IPv6 in the public arena, and help the slow movers to speed up. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 2/18/2015 11:04 AM, Phil Mayers wrote: On 18/02/15 09:29, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: A quick example; A good friend of mine is developing a smart fireplace which can be controlled via API's. He do use a 3. party development company to make the controller and API's. They did not even think of IPv6 until I did my 5 minute speech about the Don't get me started on SCADA systems. Or me :) I was consulting on a project and we had written into an RFI questions about IPv6 support and roadmap for a land mobile radio system that used a data network to back haul traffic between base stations. During a presentation, an integrator explained why we need IPv6- because IPv6 is in hex and we're running out of MAC addresses. Please don't ask me which vendor the customer ultimately picked.
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 18/02/15 09:29, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: A quick example; A good friend of mine is developing a smart fireplace which can be controlled via API's. He do use a 3. party development company to make the controller and API's. They did not even think of IPv6 until I did my 5 minute speech about the Don't get me started on SCADA systems. Based on our own experience here, the companies that make this kind of equipment are, by and large, wilfully ignorant - and I choose those words after careful consideration - of the most basic aspects of networking. It is frightening how badly designed some of this equipment is, and very, very scary how much of it wants to sit on public IP space to talk to the cloud part of the service these days. At some point in the next decade, I anticipate enterprise IT departments doing internal charging for SCADA systems which need public IPv4 space; we have seen proposals for 500 SCADA nodes needing public IPs in a single building. New systems, new to market, designed by companies considered market leaders in the product space. There is a woeful lack of ability in this bit of the industry. I'd love a big player to come in and blow the market sky high. Cheers, Phil
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hi, On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:04:32PM +, Phil Mayers wrote: Don't get me started on SCADA systems. [..] There is a woeful lack of ability in this bit of the industry. I'd love a big player to come in and blow the market sky high. The next truly big exploit for these piles of junk will ensure that the vendors will disappear... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no wrote: We are deploying IPv6 (soon) and we are not buying IPv4 for postponing IPv6 rollout. Obviously, if buying IPv4 addresses costs less and is higher quality than something like MAP-E, then it makes sense to buy addresses and go dual-stack instead of going IPv6-only. I'm wondering what will change that equation in the future, industry-wide. Do we expect that future equipment have MAP-E built in, and thus that the technology to do MAP-E inline simply becomes available at zero cost as hardware refreshes? Or do we expect that IPv4 addresses will increase in price until it becomes a bad idea to keep buying? Somehow I get the feeling that it won't be IPv4 traffic goes down close to zero that gets people to move to IPv6-only. Ragnar, what do you expect will get your network to move IPv6-only eventually? You likely won't still be running native IPv4 in 2030. How will you get there?
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 17.02.15, 16.19, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.commailto:cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Simply: buying ipv4 not only feeds the global digital divide, it actively hurts those that are trying to make a more inclusive global end-to-end internet. Users dont know or care about ipv4. Great businesses dont make decision on narrow near term shallow business cases. Sure, I agree with your statement. However, I do not see how it applies to us. We are deploying IPv6 (soon) and we are not buying IPv4 for postponing IPv6 rollout. We do it because we don't like the IPv4 over IPv6 mechanisms, and want to delay the use of it as long as it economically viable, which it is as of today. This does not fuel the digital divide in any other way than CGN/MAP/lw4o6+++. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 13 Feb 2015, at 15:49, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and would improve e.g. internet gaming. Right, and a gamer will want to use something that makes gaming easier and more reliable, and not care whether it’s IPv4 NAT or IPv22. Gamers are already quite aware of issues like port forwarding, and various classes of NATs. They might not understand what they are, but they know certain configurations are required. I don’t know which ISPs are using the filtering models that have been presented in the IETF, like RFC6092 and draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security-01. The snag of course is that addressability and reachability are not the same. I would assume RFC6887 is the IETF approved approach to firewall traversal for IPv6 where the firewall isn’t open. Tim
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 14.02.15, 19.39, Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote: From our perspective, doing investments on CGN/AFTR technology now can almost be comparable with buying address, as we must consider deprecation on the equipment anyways. If we can wait a bit longer and the IPv4 traffic lowers to for example 10% and then do the CGN /AFTER investment, it would possibly be cheaper and possibly be done with equipment we already have. I guess seen from a pure economics perspective it does not make much difference, but at least we can uphold the native IPv4 until the majority of ISP's and content providers are fully Dual-Stacked. What does IPv4 traffic lowers to...10% mean here? Is this 10% meant to suggest that you'll wait until 90% of the Internet has IPv6, or when the average dualstack user's traffic mix will reach 90% IPv6 to 10% IPv4? The latter, apologies for being unclear... :)
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
A few things, 1) interest payments presupposes that one loans money to buy addresses, 2) as long as 40% of all traffic is still IPv4 for DS enabled customer, we need a fairly sizable CGN/AFTR setup. From our perspective, doing investments on CGN/AFTR technology now can almost be comparable with buying address, as we must consider deprecation on the equipment anyways. If we can wait a bit longer and the IPv4 traffic lowers to for example 10% and then do the CGN /AFTER investment, it would possibly be cheaper and possibly be done with equipment we already have. I guess seen from a pure economics perspective it does not make much difference, but at least we can uphold the native IPv4 until the majority of ISP's and content providers are fully Dual-Stacked. So it is not just money that drives our service, quality and availability is also important factors. if I were building a new network today, I would make it IPv6 only, with IPv4 as a service on top. with A+P variants like MAP, that function can be enabled on existing peering routers or PEs. cheers, Ole signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote: Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific and somehow exempt IPv4? I read the original concern as if they force DR on us, and we run a CGN, it will not be possible / too expensive / ... to log the NAT mappings that the CGN did. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Thus wrote Gert Doering (g...@space.net): On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote: Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific and somehow exempt IPv4? I read the original concern as if they force DR on us, and we run a CGN, it will not be possible / too expensive / ... to log the NAT mappings that the CGN did. Also, expecting that politicians will let practical considerations get in the way of their desires may be overly optimistic. regards, spz -- s...@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Am 12.02.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Eric Vyncke (evyncke): Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To mimick NAT44 ? I afraid so. Regarding to http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/C/4/AC4484B8-AA16-446F-86F8-BDFC498F8732/Xbox%20One%20Technical%20Details.docx Even for users that do have native IPv6 – Teredo will be used to interact with IPv4-only peers, or in cases where IPv6 connectivity between peers is not functioning. In general, Xbox One will dynamically assess and use the best available connectivity method (Native IPv6, Teredo, and even IPv4). The implementation is similar in sprit to RFC 6555. and the practice in Germany to blocking all IPv6-inbound traffic the result is the problem for some gamers. To find the guilty and the solution is sometimes complicated: For instance Deutsche Telekom(DSL): In general no IPv6-Traffic is blocked. But the soho-routers (speedport) sold and leased by the Deutsche Telekom have a firewall, which can not be configured nor disabled. (only parts of IPv4 are configurable) The customer has the choice to use router from a third party, e.g. avm. In other cases he has no choice. (KD). But I am not sure about the exact situation because KD changes its strategies DS/DS-lite/IPv4-only and the statements by the customers are not unique. (I am only a customer at DTAG and DFN) Regards, Thomas
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 13.02.15, 10.03, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote: Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific and somehow exempt IPv4? I read the original concern as if they force DR on us, and we run a CGN, it will not be possible / too expensive / ... to log the NAT mappings that the CGN did. Spot on... :) /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 23.37, Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote: Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian content providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, and the potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some sort of Data Retention Directive, it makes sense to by addresses instead of doing CGN or equivalent. Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific and somehow exempt IPv4? Definitely not, it will not look at the difference between IPv4 and IPv6, but the amount of data needed to be stored when doing CGN, or similar, would thousand fold compared to native IPv4. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 22.53, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: There's a non-zero amount of end customers who *do* care about IPv6. After all, you do have a opt-in service which several thousand of your customers did actually opt in to - so it would seem to me that several thousands of your own customers disagree with your statement above. In the same way, you in all likelihood have a non-zero amount of end customers who do care about having a public IPv4 address all to themselves. If you did make this an opt-in feature, I'm sure you'd have many thousands of users opting in to that, too. Compared to the amount of customers, only 1,6% of all our customer having the opt-in option have done so for IPv6. Back in the days when we where doing CGN (yes we have done it for more than 10 years), around 25% of our customers chose to opt-in for a public IPv4 address. The main reason for this was that CGN did disrupt their service. Typical examples where OTT SIP services that did not support STUN, customers who wanted to have their own server at home, gamers and more. So I disagree with your statements. 25% of the customer base don't care about addressing, but they do care about connectivity, and as long as there are no perceived differences between IPv4 and IPv6. The 1,6% who have chosen to opt-in for IPv6 are the geeks and the curious people. But if you flip it around, there's a non-zero amount of end customers who do not care about neither having an exclusive public IPv4 address nor about having IPv6. If I were to venture a guess, that group would constitute the majority of your customers. Reclaiming those addresses would likely allow you to postpone your next IPv4 purchase quite a while, so I'd give that approach serious consideration if I were you. With reference to my statement above, reclaiming is not something you can do without the customer having a choice, and who would like to get their services degraded? The marketing and sales people would have to be in on it, but they do not care about IP addresses, only service quality. I am not discussing if you should by addresses or not, but quite the opposite. My management team is wondering why we need to still do IPv4 now when IPv6 is just down the road. Every service that's available over 4G mobile networks is available over 3G as well, but even so you might have noticed how the Competition Authority recently reprimanted the MVNO One Call for advertising their 3G-only service as being «equally good» as the (4G-capable) competition. I'm not sure it is constructive to compare 3G vs. 4G with IPv4 vs. IPv6. There's also now data that suggest that IPv6 has over the last few years overtaken IPv4 as the performance leader, so even if you moderate the «premium» claim to say that an IPv4-only is «equally good» as dualstack, you'd still be on shaky ground. As an absolute minimum you need feature parity with the competition before you can credibly claim to have a «premium» service, IMHO. http://www.slideshare.net/apnic/2014-0917v6performance-141076 If the difference had been significant, I would agree, but the differences are so small that a normal customer will not perceive it. stating the obvious Keep in mind that IPv4 and IPv6 are only the roadsigns, and as long as the roadsigns are there and readable, it does not matter for the customer if it is written in IPv4 or IPv6. He still finds the way to the server. /stating the obvious Just to be clear. I am not speaking against IPv6, quite the contrary, as you know I have been a pro IPv6 tech for a long time, but I still have my management team to deal with. And we are not saying no IPv6, we have rather moved on to no IPv4?. I think it is to early, and CGN will degrade our service for 25% of our customers, which is a bit to high as of today. I fully agree that we need more eyeballs to help the content providers start doing IPv6 in scale, and trust me, we are moving towards that goal quickly. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson se...@google.com wrote: On the contrary, it gives you a great single point to log everything. I'm sure PST will be thrilled. Plus, too expensive is only a problem for the carriers, not for the vendors. Adding a way to dump the state of the CGN should be more or less trivial and if they can charge extra for compliance all the better. Sounds like near net win from the vendor's POV. Richard
Re: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Richard Hartmann wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: so I guess clients need to try a few times and not listen to the (initial) ICMP messages until the hole is open. That sounds slightly broken as well. I agree. Do you have a better suggestion? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Thomas Schäfer wrote: and the practice in Germany to blocking all IPv6-inbound traffic the result is the problem for some gamers. So I guess applications should use the same technique as one does to traverse NAT44:s, ie both ends of the connection send packets to each other to open their respective firewall. I do agree that the firewall in question needs to not send rejects for this traffic for this to work. I am happy this use-case was brought up, because I hadn't heard and thought about this before. Personally I don't want to silently drop packets, so I guess clients need to try a few times and not listen to the (initial) ICMP messages until the hole is open. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 13/02/15 11:26, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Thomas Schäfer wrote: and the practice in Germany to blocking all IPv6-inbound traffic the result is the problem for some gamers. So I guess applications should use the same technique as one does to traverse NAT44:s, ie both ends of the connection send packets to each other to open their respective firewall. I do agree that the firewall in question needs to not send rejects for this traffic for this to work. I am happy this use-case was brought up, because I hadn't heard and thought about this before. Personally I don't want to silently drop packets, so I guess clients need to try a few times and not listen to the (initial) ICMP messages until the hole is open. It all depends on the behaviour of the device(s) It's perfectly possible for a CPE to send ICMP errors without those errors creating a NAT table entry and blocking the real (inside) host from using that 5-tuple. In the situation I described yesterday, the CPE is Linux, and it could have done something like: iptables -t raw -A OUTPUT -p icmp -j NOTRACK Or it could not send errors for unknown UDP flows directed to high ports e.g.: iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j PERMIT iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 1024:65545 -j DROP There's a bunch of different solutions. None of this should be a problem for non-NATed IPv6. The absence of NAT will mean an ICMP error doesn't block a NAT translation - there's no such thing to block - so a CPE can send errors or not. If you're NATing IPv6, well... you brought it on yourself ;o) Cheers, Phil
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Phil Mayers wrote: None of this should be a problem for non-NATed IPv6. The absence of NAT will mean an ICMP error doesn't block a NAT translation - there's no such thing to block - so a CPE can send errors or not. Ah, thanks for pointing that out. So currently there are multiple providers disallowing incoming connections to IPv6 addresses for customers. But if I understand correctly, including what you described before, this would work: U1=User1, U2=User2... HGW1=HomeGateWay, belonging to U1. Assume IPv6 and no NAT. U1 and U2 are going to play a game together. They're speaking to the game server. U1 says please talk to me on U1IP UDP port U1PORT). U2 says please talk to me on U2IP UDP port U2PORT. Game server informs respective user about the other users' IP/PORT combination. Now, U1 sends a UDP packet from U1IP,U1PORT to U2IP,U2PORT. HGW1 creates flow state for U1IP,U1PORT-U2IP,U2PORT. Packet reaches HGW2, which has no flow state, and is dropped. ICMP error message might be created. In case of ICMP error message, U1 should ignore this. U2 sends a packet from U2IP,U2PORT to U1IP,U1PORT. HGW2 creates flow state. Packet hits HGW1 which already has a flow state, and packet successfully reaches U1. U1 now can start sending packets to U2 as well and they've worked around both of them having HGWs with stateful firewalls disallowing new connections to them. Right? The crucial step here seems to be the fact that initial packets might be dropped and error messages be generated, but these should be ignored by the application. Is this commonplace? Is it a problem at all? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: How to introduce it to existing customers, you might ask? Maybe just ask them? Send an SMS saying 20% off your next bill if you give up your IPv4 address (and enable IPv6?), pointing out it's not binding and can be re-enabled at any time. Or introduce a new invoice item for IPv4 with a symbolic charge, reducing the base fee accordingly so the total stays the same. Inform them that the IPv4 charge can go away if they disable the public IPv4 option in the customer portal. Price reductions will be something he can not decide on his own. That being said, calculating the cost of new IPv4 plus adding it to the available pools versus the one-time reduction in income may be a good way to influence this internal discussion. Richard -- Richard
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 13/02/15 13:27, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Packet reaches HGW2, which has no flow state, and is dropped. ICMP error message might be created. In case of ICMP error message, U1 should ignore this. That's an application-layer issue. It all depends on how they're talking to the socket API. They might not even see the ICMP error if they're just doing dumb send() calls. U2 sends a packet from U2IP,U2PORT to U1IP,U1PORT. HGW2 creates flow state. Packet hits HGW1 which already has a flow state, and packet successfully reaches U1. U1 now can start sending packets to U2 as well and they've worked around both of them having HGWs with stateful firewalls disallowing new connections to them. Right? Yes. The crucial step here seems to be the fact that initial packets might be dropped and error messages be generated, but these should be ignored by the application. Is this commonplace? Is it a problem at all? As above, depends on how they're using the socket API. As a rule for UDP connections, you actually have to put *more* work in to see ICMP errors. It's certainly possible to ignore them.
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Tore, In an ideal world, all your statements are true, and for us who has been roaming the IPv6 forums and meetings the last year knows all this. However, the business side does not see it the same way we do, and that is something we all have to deal with and why we are moving so slowly. Reducing the price of the service is not an option for the sales people, unless there are other benefits, and right now there are none. Spending for example $650K on IP addresses is far cheaper than reducing the price by 20% in addition to investing in the technology to enable MAP, lw4o6 or CGN. So unfortunately, we can put the ideology aside and concentrate on deploying IPv6 while keeping IPv4 as good as possible. When we finally meet the magic threshold, we can start discussing which technology is best for keeping the legacy IPv4 available. I might have misunderstood you, but I think we have totally different perspectives when we look at the problem, thus I agree in the ideology, it doesn't work like that in the real world. My goal with my question was to find sensible arguments for keeping IPv4 as a native service for now, since the cost/benefit does not add up yet. However, in the future it might, but I think we are not there yet for the next couple of years. /Ragnar On 13.02.15, 13.38, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: * Anfinsen, Ragnar On 12.02.15, 22.53, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: There's a non-zero amount of end customers who *do* care about IPv6. After all, you do have a opt-in service which several thousand of your customers did actually opt in to - so it would seem to me that several thousands of your own customers disagree with your statement above. In the same way, you in all likelihood have a non-zero amount of end customers who do care about having a public IPv4 address all to themselves. If you did make this an opt-in feature, I'm sure you'd have many thousands of users opting in to that, too. Compared to the amount of customers, only 1,6% of all our customer having the opt-in option have done so for IPv6. Back in the days when we where doing CGN (yes we have done it for more than 10 years), around 25% of our customers chose to opt-in for a public IPv4 address. The main reason for this was that CGN did disrupt their service. Typical examples where OTT SIP services that did not support STUN, customers who wanted to have their own server at home, gamers and more. Note that with MAP (maybe also lw4o6, but I'm less familiar with it) home servers will work. This is because the customer actually does get a public IPv4 address routed to his CPE - the additional restriction is that he is limited as to which source ports he can use. So he can't expect to be able to set up his SSH server on port 22/tcp, but he will be able to set it up on some other port which might well be sufficient for his use case. Same thing goes for gamers, there the inbound ports are typically dynamically assigned with UPnP or something like that, so the CPE is in a position to simply assign a port from its assigned range for inbound traffic. So for gamers, MAP ought to be pretty much equivalent to regular public IPv4 with NAT44 in HGW. Anyway, if 25% of your customers have a problem with traditional stateful CGN, then you can expect that less than 25% would have a problem with MAP. Not only because more application protocols work, but also because the mandatory native IPv6 will help avoid problems by sidestepping the MAP system and the CPE's NAT44 completely. So I disagree with your statements. 25% of the customer base don't care about addressing, but they do care about connectivity, and as long as there are no perceived differences between IPv4 and IPv6. The 1,6% who have chosen to opt-in for IPv6 are the geeks and the curious people. I'm not sure how you can disagree with my statements, since you confirm them to be true: 1) A non-zero amount of your customers (1.6%) care about IPv6 2) A non-zero amount of your customers (25%) care about public IPv4 3) The majority of your customers (73.4-75%) do not care about neither IPv6 nor public IPv4 Right? Group #3 is where you have the largest potential for starting to break free of IPv4... But if you flip it around, there's a non-zero amount of end customers who do not care about neither having an exclusive public IPv4 address nor about having IPv6. If I were to venture a guess, that group would constitute the majority of your customers. Reclaiming those addresses would likely allow you to postpone your next IPv4 purchase quite a while, so I'd give that approach serious consideration if I were you. With reference to my statement above, reclaiming is not something you can do without the customer having a choice, and who would like to get their services degraded? I've never suggested that you should not give the customer a choice. Quite the opposite, I think you *should* give them a choice to have a public IPv4
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 02:12:31PM +, Phil Mayers wrote: As above, depends on how they're using the socket API. As a rule for UDP connections, you actually have to put *more* work in to see ICMP errors. It's certainly possible to ignore them. FWIW, at least on Linux, if you keep doing send() on an UDP connection where the other end sends ICMP destination unreachable, you'll get errors back (ECONNREFUSED) eventually, although typically not on every packet you send. /* Steinar */ -- Software Engineer, Google Switzerland
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 13/02/15 14:37, Thomas Schäfer wrote: Why a discussion to drill the firewall with very tricky things? (it's sound to me like the same sh... stun and other legacy ipv4 horrors.) In my opinion the firewall should be configurable (unfortunately DTAG-speedport-series, including the hybrid-modell dsl/lte can't) by upnp or by the user. That's fine, and I agree in theory. But Sony and Microsoft aren't going to just assume or enforce that, and I don't blame them. They have to assume some proportion of devices will be behind a firewall or NAT, and will write the code accordingly. Done correctly, it's very little additional burden over just sending straight UDP packets. There's really no reason for system/app vendors to *not* implement traversal, and it doesn't harm the network. But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and would improve e.g. internet gaming.
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 14.14, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw I wish we could, but as long as the service is user driven, and it basically is the product and sales people selling the service, it is almost as hard to persuade them as it is to persuade the content provider. :) However, in Norway there are some movement on the content side as the government has started to show real interest on implementing IPv6. They are working on changing the procurement procedures to demand IPv6 on all IT investments for the public sector. So hopefully, they will help to show the other big content providers that it is time to move. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 12.24, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs). However, once you have implemented IPv6 (and I understand that your new network architecture supports native IPv6?), you can actually do stuff like that. Mikael already mentioned MAP and lw4o6, and I'd just like to add that this does not necessarily mean oversubscription of IPv4 addresses - at least with MAP, you can still assign whole /32s to customers (or even larger prefixes for that matter). These technologies also allow for more efficient utilisation of your available IPv4 address space then what you're usually able to accomplish in a traditional IPv4 network. If you assign a /24 to the MAP service, you can make use of every single one of the 256 IP addresses - including the .0 and .255 if you so desire. You can do similar stuff in the data centre BTW, and I'm sure my employer would be happy to have me help you out with that. ;-) Thnx... Might take you up on that one... ;) A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our Internet access. Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium», when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors offer? Keep in mind that end customers don't care about IP addresses but services, and as long as CGN like technology reduces the service level. As of today every service available on IPv6 is also available on IPv4, hence as long as one uses native IPv4 the service is what we call a Premium service. /Ragnar
Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To mimick NAT44 ? -éric On 12/02/15 14:00, Thomas Schäfer tho...@cis.uni-muenchen.de wrote: Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com: This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6. xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6. Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion that xbox works well with IPv6. It was last spring/summer. You can find it also in the archive of this list. In short: xbox did not work at several (IPv6) providers. Some of them have patched their routers and found a solution with Microsoft (comcast). In other parts of the world, *the solution* was to allow teredo at an IPv6-Access. Because I don't own a xbox I haven't sniffed the network behaviour, but I observe some costumer portals (e.g. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone) and there are still problems, often related to IPv6. (can have other reasons too, like instability at all, Firewalls or something else) Thomas
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw I wish we could, but as long as the service is user driven, and it basically is the product and sales people selling the service, it is almost as hard to persuade them as it is to persuade the content provider. :) However, in Norway there are some movement on the content side as the government has started to show real interest on implementing IPv6. They are working on changing the procurement procedures to demand IPv6 on all IT investments for the public sector. So hopefully, they will help to show the other big content providers that it is time to move. in Norway 53% if content (in traffic) is available over IPv6, but only 9% of users have IPv6 access. no doubt that we need to ensure everyone does their part, but it is pretty clear that we're missing IPv6 to end users. cheers, Ole signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does? Since December of 2008. You can't reach uggc://cubgb.orireyl.xyrvaohf.bet/argybt through IPv4. -is
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Gert, So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does? Today! (I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their customers...) But that's better value by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. For me I would get added value when I could deploy IPv6 only services at home, e.g. mail, XMPP, web, SIP... VPN. And I could reach my own home whenever I'm travelling. With a devil's advocate hat on, IPv6 in my home right now gives me slightly more hassle than it is worth. The only value is that I am able to reach my IPv6 only mail server from work and at IETFs, but that's pretty much it. I can't do IPv4 as a service either (like relegate IPv4 to the edge of the network and run IPv6 only inside), because there are too many IPv4 only devices. When's that going to change? 50% deployment? 90% deployment? cheers, Ole signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: But that's better value by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. You mean, trained to see their downloads/web page updates break all the time, like when they're in the mid of a tourist region during vacation time? Hotel's WLAN's NAT tables clog, mobile phone provider's NAT tables overflow. A lose-lose situation. IPv4 will deteriorate more and more over the years. We have know this for a quarter century now, and there is no way back. -is
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Mikael, But that's better value by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't have +P, so for instance my corporate VPN doesn't work because for some reason it uses GRE. I think we're going to have to do some kind of A+P for protocols with port, and then do CGN (ds.lite) for everything else. well, I think all applications will just end up having a P. if that means GRE over UDP or something else. I would really have liked us to stop going down this path, but it seems like we're not going to be able to. cheers, Ole signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
* Anfinsen, Ragnar I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs). However, once you have implemented IPv6 (and I understand that your new network architecture supports native IPv6?), you can actually do stuff like that. Mikael already mentioned MAP and lw4o6, and I'd just like to add that this does not necessarily mean oversubscription of IPv4 addresses - at least with MAP, you can still assign whole /32s to customers (or even larger prefixes for that matter). These technologies also allow for more efficient utilisation of your available IPv4 address space then what you're usually able to accomplish in a traditional IPv4 network. If you assign a /24 to the MAP service, you can make use of every single one of the 256 IP addresses - including the .0 and .255 if you so desire. You can do similar stuff in the data centre BTW, and I'm sure my employer would be happy to have me help you out with that. ;-) A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our Internet access. Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium», when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors offer? If you consider the existence of optional/opt-in IPv6 support as sufficient to call the entire product «premium», then perhaps you could extend that line of reasoning to public IPv4? In other words, give your customers to shared IPv4 by default, but allow them to opt-in to get a public IPv4 address. Some percentage of your customers won't care to do so as they're perfectly happy without (just as they might be perfectly happy without IPv6), leaving you with available IPv4 addresses you can assign to your CGN/MAP/lw4o6/whatever equipment and to those of your customers who opt in to get public IPv4. Tore
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
* Ole Troan When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does? If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is just *so* *extremely* infuriating to have the game stall on you while you're sneaking up for the kill, and suddenly three seconds later it recovers only that now *you're* the one sitting there in a pool of blood, waiting to respawn), you'd surprised to see how much grief there is about which «NAT Type» one has and suggestions on how to improve this. Gamers in this situation might also stumble across Microsoft's statement that if you want to experience ideal online connectivity with the Xbox One, then you'll want to be using IPv6. And then if the gamer then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up actively *wanting* IPv6. Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told that IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well. Tore
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Feb 12, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, olaf.bonn...@telekom.de mailto:olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote: I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw just dreaming... [Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will turn red because of people blaming you as ISP. That's not true. ISPs shake down content companies all the time - look at Comcast vs. Netflix, for example. I'm sure that as a large DT does its share of that kind of thing too :-) Comcast (and others) could exempt v6 traffic from any user data caps / overages. That might get both sides of the equation motivated. *--- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -- | Mike Tindle | Senior Network Engineer | mtin...@he.net | ASN 6939 | http://www.he.net | 510-580-4126 *---
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote: I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw just dreaming... [Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will turn red because of people blaming you as ISP. That's not true. ISPs shake down content companies all the time - look at Comcast vs. Netflix, for example. I'm sure that as a large DT does its share of that kind of thing too :-)
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian content providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, and the potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some sort of Data Retention Directive, it makes sense to by addresses instead of doing CGN or equivalent. Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific and somehow exempt IPv4? (not a recommendation, but purely for reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6302)
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does? Today! [..] But that's better value by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. For me, IPv6 has always been about IPv4 does not have enough addresses, and as a consequence of that, pain and avoidable cost ensues. Thus, I'm not sure we do ourselves a favour by making IPv4-cludges so good that the pain is hidden well enough - the fact that Kabel Deutschland is breaking SIP is causing quite a bit of pain at one of the bigger german SIP providers, who are rumoured to look into IPv6 deployment now... For me I would get added value when I could deploy IPv6 only services at home, e.g. mail, XMPP, web, SIP... VPN. And I could reach my own home whenever I'm travelling. I can see that, and of course I have that for IPv4 already :-) - but I claim that this is actually not something most (for wild handwaving values of most) users want, given that normal end users just don't run services at home, might not even have always-on components at all (readers of this list are not normal end users, your parents might be). One of the major benefits of IPv6 I see for SOHO users is the homenet architecture with multihoming, SADR and service/ISP selection *by the application* (use cable ISP for bittorrent, use DSL for web browsing). We're not there yet, though... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgps3e2AmF6HX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hi! [Gert wrote] (I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their customers...) Yes, they do break that. We had one case, where we replaced IPsec with OpenVPN to overcome that issue. KabelBW is selling business accounts with static IPv4 like mad, but how long those last remains to be seen. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 5 years to go !
RE: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Nice to hear that you feel like that ;-). However I’ve often got another impression. But may be that is a subjective experience. From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2015 23:05 To: Bonneß, Olaf Cc: Gert Doering; Ragnar Anfinsen; Steinar Gunderson; IPv6 Ops list Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6... On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, olaf.bonn...@telekom.demailto:olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote: I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw just dreaming... [Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will turn red because of people blaming you as ISP. That's not true. ISPs shake down content companies all the time - look at Comcast vs. Netflix, for example. I'm sure that as a large DT does its share of that kind of thing too :-)
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 10.58, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote: As Steinar pointed out: You can help speeding up the process by enabling native IPv6 access for as many as possible (all?) of your subscribers today. I am sure you know that you can't completely skip the dual-stack phase, and that's what you need to tell your manager. Sorry, but an opt-in 6RD service isn't going to make IPv4 go away. You need to force enable dual-stack access for as many users as you can. And if you dream about doing IPv6 only, then 6RD isn't going to do, is it? You need to roll out native IPv6 access, and you need to do that before you can even think about dropping IPv4. My point exactly, and we are in the process of doing DS, but it needs a major network revamping. However, we have started this rollout, and will enable DS as soon as possible. Any delay in your dual-stack rollout translates directly to increased cost of buying IPv4 addresses because it delays the magic cutoff day when you can start selling IPv4 access as an opional add-on service. Sure, but this requires our product department to look at IPv4 as legacy and stop caring about customers who do gaming and have their own servers and such. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Anfinsen, Ragnar: Sure, but this requires our product department to look at IPv4 as legacy and stop caring about customers who do gaming and have their own servers and such. No. We should help them to migrate their games and own servers to IPv6. One argument (it is not true here ) against IPv6 is: I cannot access my NAS/owncloud/vpn ... any more. This stuff maybe used only by some users, but not irrelevant users. Thomas
Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com: This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6. xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6. Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion that xbox works well with IPv6. It was last spring/summer. You can find it also in the archive of this list. In short: xbox did not work at several (IPv6) providers. Some of them have patched their routers and found a solution with Microsoft (comcast). In other parts of the world, *the solution* was to allow teredo at an IPv6-Access. Because I don't own a xbox I haven't sniffed the network behaviour, but I observe some costumer portals (e.g. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone) and there are still problems, often related to IPv6. (can have other reasons too, like instability at all, Firewalls or something else) Thomas
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 01.05, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.commailto:cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: I always cringe when folks say premium internet. Internet is always best effort, we are all always reduced to the least common denominator for network quality. Sure, but doing CGN or equivalent reduces the best effort of IPv4 even further, and we want to uphold the quality as much as possible. I would say networks that only have ipv4 are not doing their best effort. There will not be suitable truly ipv6-only offering in the next 10 Years because of these laggards. That said, buying ipv4 makes me feel ill. Please put ipv4 where it belong in the cgn / nat64 / MAP br / aftr. Ipv4 is not premium, it is legacy services deployed by companies on a downward slide. . My customers care about fb and google and netflix, those are top services and all on ipv6 Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian content providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, and the potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some sort of Data Retention Directive, it makes sense to by addresses instead of doing CGN or equivalent. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we still need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many content providers. Amen. Frustrating as it is. I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw just dreaming... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 09.16, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? Depends. Are you selling Internet access for data center hosting, for business or for residential or for some other customer base? Mostly residential and some business. If you want to support power users with your premium product, then I'd imagine you need IPv4 address on your services for at least 5 more years. There are use cases where power residential/business users can't get their applications running with port forwarding etc with CGN where multiple customers share a single IPv4 address. If you want to support 90% of the residential customer base, and perhaps 50-80% of the corporate one, then I'd say you could stick them behind CGN of some kind right now. You decide if that would be Premium or not. For data center, just charge extra for the IPv4 address and it'll sort out itself. Generally I would do the same across the entire customer base, start charging extra for GUA IPv4 address and then you'll see what customers care and who do not. Even it you charge a few EUR per month, the people who do not care will not opt for this, and you can stick them behind CGN. The ones who do pay will pay enough so you can rent or buy IPv4 addresses if you don't free up enough of them with your existing customers being moved behind CGN. When you roll new customers to behind a CGN I would highly recommend to provide IPv4 connectivity by means of tunneling it over IPv6, such as lw4o6, MAP-E or alike. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se Thank you, Mikael. Appreciate the feedback. /Ragnar
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
* Thomas Schäfer This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6. IIRC this was for communication between a dual-stacked XB1 and an IPv4-only XB1. It's impossible to use IPv6 for that, because IPv4 is the lowest common denominator. The XB1 is simply using Teredo to tunnel P2P traffic over IPv4. Is there any known problems related to IPv6 communication between two XB1s that both have native IPv6 access? Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told that IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well. Any public source/ statement from sony? No, I just exchanged some e-mails with an SCE guy back in October. He said: «As for the PS4, the hardware was designed with IPv6 in mind and they are planning to enable IPv6 at some point. (It is just a firmware thing.) Initially we were told that the PS4 would launch with IPv6, but in the end I think they were just so busy getting all the other stuff done that they decided to wait on implementing IPv6 on it. I know that they are still planning on implementing it, but unfortunately no one has shared any dates with me.» Hopefully it'll come soon. Tore
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12.02.15, 01.11, Steinar H. Gunderson se...@google.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? Maybe because the move is going too slowly? Case in point: http://goo.gl/q4EGQ3 shows disappointingly little Altibox, even though you've been talking about IPv6 for the last five years, at least. Maybe it's time to stop going opt-in :-) Thank you for your thoughts, Steinar. This really helps me answer my management team on why we should not need more IPv4 in the future... ;) Kidding aside. Sure, we are late, and we have the same challenges which many others have; having to reinvest and rebuild to get true Dual Stack. However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we still need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many content providers. /Ragnar
RE: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Inline below. -Original Message- From: ipv6-ops-bounces+olaf.bonness=telekom...@lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+olaf.bonness=telekom...@lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2015 14:14 To: Anfinsen, Ragnar Cc: Steinar H. Gunderson; IPv6 Ops list Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6... Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we still need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many content providers. Amen. Frustrating as it is. I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the 3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw just dreaming... [Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will turn red because of people blaming you as ISP.
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Am 12.02.2015 um 12:05 schrieb Tore Anderson: And then if the gamer then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up actively *wanting* IPv6. This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6. xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6. Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told that IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well. Any public source/ statement from sony? Regards, Thomas
Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On 12/02/15 12:40, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote: This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6. xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6. Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion that xbox works well with IPv6. The Teredo implementation used for person2person connectivity in Xbox One does not have relays. That is, you can't talk Native IPv6 - XB1 Teredo. The implication is that, unless all parties in an XB1 session have native IPv6, all parties will fall back to Teredo-over-IPv4. As such, you need working Teredo/IPv4 for XB1 today, as you're very likely to need to execute this fallback. Given that Teredo relays were the unreliable bit, I can't fault this. The XB1 Teredo stuff is actually quite a reasonable approach. Cheers, Phil
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote: This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6. xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6. Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion that xbox works well with IPv6. This thread probably: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2014-March/009929.html -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does? Best regards, Ole signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hi guys. I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our Internet access. My argument is that we need addresses as long as there are important services that only do IPv4 (yes, there are still a few, especially in Norway), and as long as the other ISP are reluctant to implement IPv6 (luckily in Norway, all the major ISPs have already come a long way). When IPv6 reaches critical mass is the $5000 dollar question which I wish I had the answer for. So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? /Ragnar Altibox AS
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hello, Le 11 févr. 2015 à 21:42, Anfinsen, Ragnar a écrit : Hi guys. I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our Internet access. My argument is that we need addresses as long as there are important services that only do IPv4 (yes, there are still a few, especially in Norway), and as long as the other ISP are reluctant to implement IPv6 (luckily in Norway, all the major ISPs have already come a long way). When IPv6 reaches critical mass is the $5000 dollar question which I wish I had the answer for. So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? Actually it depends on whether you are on the content or ISP side. But both showed a benefit. * On content side, there is an example of a french hosting company named Gandi who rents its VMs with an IPv6-only option. Benefit for the hoster : less IPv4 to find out, benefit for the client : a cheeper VM. * On ISP side, you can think about 464XLAT deployments where users may have an unfiltered IPv6 but a kind of CGN on IPv4. Benefit for the ISP : less traffic through the CGN (i never seen studies on this point but it would be really interesting), benefit for the customer : a reliable access to its favorite websites (Google, Youtube, Facebook) without the CGN factory. * On big infrastructures, you can also think about having your servers addressed IPv6-only and put an IPv4 only on your load-balancers Anyway, i think you can find a way to show a benefit according to your case. Best regards Emmanuel Thierry
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no wrote: Hi guys. I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our Internet access. My argument is that we need addresses as long as there are important services that only do IPv4 (yes, there are still a few, especially in Norway), and as long as the other ISP are reluctant to implement IPv6 (luckily in Norway, all the major ISPs have already come a long way). When IPv6 reaches critical mass is the $5000 dollar question which I wish I had the answer for. So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? I always cringe when folks say premium internet. Internet is always best effort, we are all always reduced to the least common denominator for network quality. I would say networks that only have ipv4 are not doing their best effort. There will not be suitable truly ipv6-only offering in the next 10 Years because of these laggards. That said, buying ipv4 makes me feel ill. Please put ipv4 where it belong in the cgn / nat64 / MAP br / aftr. Ipv4 is not premium, it is legacy services deployed by companies on a downward slide. . My customers care about fb and google and netflix, those are top services and all on ipv6 CB /Ragnar Altibox AS
Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? Maybe because the move is going too slowly? Case in point: http://goo.gl/q4EGQ3 shows disappointingly little Altibox, even though you've been talking about IPv6 for the last five years, at least. Maybe it's time to stop going opt-in :-) /* Steinar */ -- Software Engineer, Google Switzerland
