Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: one and then it levels off again. The question is: where on the S are we now? There is something to be said for high (close to leveling off) because pretty much anyone who wants/needs IP in North America and Europe has it, but maybe we're still quite low, since lots of stuff that could benefit from IP connectivity is still standalone. (And then there's the rest of the world, of course.) I think we'll have a double S. Almost all residential broadband providers here (.fi) have changed their policy from allocating 10/8 addresses and NATting the tens of thousands of subscribers to the outside to automatically allocating public IP's with DHCP. Total consumption in order of a few hundred thousand addresses for our small country alone. The problem is not so much address space (you can run a fortune 500 company behind a single address with NAT) but routing. This is still a big problem in IPv6 (as we're hoping to avoid the mess that is IPv4), but I think we're getting closer to a solution. Private address space is a pain if you have to redo company boundaries. Merging two or three businesses who all used the first subnets of 10/8 takes a lot of unneccessary extra hardware. Pete
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you can go hybrid, like - client connects to server for game playing info (like location on the map, inventory and stuff) - client will talk with each other directly for video/voice-chat even with this, server load/traffic will be decreased. This is exactly what I also had in mind. This would get 1:10 benefit in bandwidth and actually enable this kind of activity. i still don't understand why you say multicast is mandatory. Most consumer connetions (where this is feasible anyway) are asymmetric, having 256k-1.5Mbps downstream and 128k-512k upstream. A decent video stream represents 128k to 384k of bandwidth. If you have a small number, say eight players in a game, you'll end up sending the stream seven times unless you do multicast. You probably don't have the upstream bandwidth to accommodate that unless you're lucky to sit on top of a new housing development with fiber in the basement. The next logical step to this discussion is what happens to multicast routing when one million gamers setup half a million *,G and a few million S,G pairs. Add a zero if it makes the excersise more interesting. Keep in mind that one million gamers playing is less than what the network currently has at any given moment. Pete
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Driver #1 : Sell p00rn via IPv6 only. Sad but true. Content and use is all there is. Remember that multicast never happened either. How much it would take to sponsor free content over multicast to get it deployed. Don´t know if this would be approvable for government subsidies though. I am not sure it has to be free. It just has to be available. As long as there is no valuable content in v6 that I can't get in v4 there will be no user drive to change. What might happen is that ISPs start using IPv6 for their (as example) DSL services to work around addressing problems. But that is not a userdriven demand. - kurtis -
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
with IPv6 (without NAT), server can just introduce client A's address to B, and let them video-chat directly. so game operators will be able to reduce the size of central server, and traffic to server will be decreased. so for game operators, IPv6 has major (commercial) benefit. Remember that for this to happen, you also need multicast. And since IPv4 Petri I think the point is that you actually don't need multicast to do it. For it to scale - yes. But not to do it. I guess that is also partly why multicast has not taken off.. - kurtis -
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Kurtis Lindqvist wrote: What might happen is that ISPs start using IPv6 for their (as example) DSL services to work around addressing problems. But that is not a userdriven demand. I'm already aware of installations where IPv6 gets you globally routable connectivity and IPv4 gets you NATted. No mentionable impact on IPv6 traffic. Maybe the p2p vendors should implement IPv6, it might also take a while until RIAA finds them again :-) Pete
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Hello; My personal feeling is that on-line extreme gaming will be a very good killer ap for ISP's selling broadband. HOWEVER, IMHO the current ASM with MSDP will _not_ support one million+ (*,G) groups. ASM is limited in its interdomain growth potential at present, in both IPv4 and IPv6, and there is no real consensus on how to move forward. SSM could support 1 million (S,G) only groups, but then, unless you are going to have a combinatorial N! group explosion, you will need to impose some sort of hierarchical nature on the game (say, you only comminicate with the people (entities?) you are interacting with. Regards Marshall Eubanks Petri Helenius wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you can go hybrid, like - client connects to server for game playing info (like location on the map, inventory and stuff) - client will talk with each other directly for video/voice-chat even with this, server load/traffic will be decreased. This is exactly what I also had in mind. This would get 1:10 benefit in bandwidth and actually enable this kind of activity. i still don't understand why you say multicast is mandatory. Most consumer connetions (where this is feasible anyway) are asymmetric, having 256k-1.5Mbps downstream and 128k-512k upstream. A decent video stream represents 128k to 384k of bandwidth. If you have a small number, say eight players in a game, you'll end up sending the stream seven times unless you do multicast. You probably don't have the upstream bandwidth to accommodate that unless you're lucky to sit on top of a new housing development with fiber in the basement. The next logical step to this discussion is what happens to multicast routing when one million gamers setup half a million *,G and a few million S,G pairs. Add a zero if it makes the excersise more interesting. Keep in mind that one million gamers playing is less than what the network currently has at any given moment. Pete -- Regards Marshall Eubanks This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
RE: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jeroen Massar wrote: Maybe the p2p vendors should implement IPv6, it might also take a while until RIAA finds them again :-) Then I hope they'll implement RFC 3041, otherwise the RIAA will go on a massive MAC address hunt... Hmm a MAC... and then (sweet, dude) ? I still don't get it why that would be a problem, simply because: - one can change your IP by hand and/or automagically (RFC 3041 like you mentioned) - MAC's can be changed (ifconfig hwaddr... ) Yes, but rebooting each time you change the MAC address for your windows box gets somewhat tiresome after a while... And then still.. they know that 'something/one' from a certain /48 did 'something'. Ok, first of all: it was a joke. I guess I should have included a :-) Second: that the record industry might think it's a good idea has little bearing on it being actually a good idea. I have no trouble believing they would subpoena ethernet card sales records from stores to find out MAC addresses to go after people who trade MP3s if they thought there was a 1% chance it would do their cause any good. And it might, since most PC users don't know what a MAC address is, let alone how to change it. So what, if you pay at a store with your VISA or AMEX or simply your bankcard. That company holds at least your accountnumber, let's crossreference that. Never heard of cash? (BTW your post wout be easier to read if the lines were 80 chars.) Same thing (IMHO ;) as the IP address thing, it pops up at several places and they can do many statistical stuff with it for behaviour research, buy styles etc. Yes. I use a static address that is easily correlated with lots of real-life info about me, and I'm not always happy about that. ipv6 [-p] gpu UseAnonymousAddresses [yes|no|always|Counter] that's how you turn that stupid feature off, it is annoying IMHO and quite useless as Why is it stupid, annoying and useless? Iljitsch van Beijnum
RE: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Hmm. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with just about everything you've said :) . I haven't seen any enterprise folks demanding v6 - If VOIP and PDA's (?) use up their IP addresses, they can easily ask for more. The more you use, the more you get. There is no shortage of v4 space. China and Japan are not mandating anything, AFAIK. I believe that v6 deployment is being encouraged by some countries, and the spread of 3G is helping things along, but we have yet to see really widespread v6 deployments anywhere. Basically, major backbone networks will deploy v6 when it makes economic sense for them to do so. Right now, there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change in the near future. v6 is, currently, a solution in search of a problem. v4 space is being consumed slowly, but we are quite some time from a crisis. Of course, even when we consume all such ipv4 space, there are still expedients that can be used, including making v4 assets tradable and fungible. - Dan Irwin Lazar Said... Since we're on the topic of IPv6, I wanted to gauge the current attitude of the ops. community toward its deployment. We're seeing a lot more interest from our enterprise clients in using v6, especially as things like VoIP and PDAs consume their address pools, and NAT gets in the way of collaborative apps such as netmeeting and business-to-business connectivity. However, the road-block seems to be the lack of ISPs that offer IPv6 services. Given that places like China Japan are now mandating IPv6 for their ISPs, does anyone see anything resembling a growing momentum toward IPv6 adoption, or is it still a moot issue for you guys? Irwin
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Thus spake Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with just about everything you've said :) . I haven't seen any enterprise folks demanding v6 - If VOIP and PDA's (?) use up their IP addresses, they can easily ask for more. The more you use, the more you get. There is no shortage of v4 space. Most enterprise folks use nowhere near their paltry allotment of IPv4 addresses because 95% or more of their hosts are on RFC1918 space. Even most companies with multiple class B legacy allocations use RFC1918 internally and are just holding the class B's so they can multihome effectively. Basically, major backbone networks will deploy v6 when it makes economic sense for them to do so. Right now, there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change in the near future. Enterprise networks will not be the driver for ISPs to go to IPv6; NAT is too entrenched. Perhaps greater adoption of always-on broadband access will be the necessary push. S
RE: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Mmmm... me too post. I have to agree with Dan on this. The only people who ask me about IPv6 are people who have heard something about it from some tech magazine and want the Newest Thing. Much of its useful functionality (except the widened address space) is available in v4, and v4 is deployed. There is no commercial demand for a v6 backbone. That's the big roadblock right now. -Dave On 8/29/2002 at 11:05:49 -0400, Daniel Golding said: Hmm. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with just about everything you've said :) . I haven't seen any enterprise folks demanding v6 - If VOIP and PDA's (?) use up their IP addresses, they can easily ask for more. The more you use, the more you get. There is no shortage of v4 space. China and Japan are not mandating anything, AFAIK. I believe that v6 deployment is being encouraged by some countries, and the spread of 3G is helping things along, but we have yet to see really widespread v6 deployments anywhere. Basically, major backbone networks will deploy v6 when it makes economic sense for them to do so. Right now, there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change in the near future. v6 is, currently, a solution in search of a problem. v4 space is being consumed slowly, but we are quite some time from a crisis. Of course, even when we consume all such ipv4 space, there are still expedients that can be used, including making v4 assets tradable and fungible. - Dan Irwin Lazar Said... Since we're on the topic of IPv6, I wanted to gauge the current attitude of the ops. community toward its deployment. We're seeing a lot more interest from our enterprise clients in using v6, especially as things like VoIP and PDAs consume their address pools, and NAT gets in the way of collaborative apps such as netmeeting and business-to-business connectivity. However, the road-block seems to be the lack of ISPs that offer IPv6 services. Given that places like China Japan are now mandating IPv6 for their ISPs, does anyone see anything resembling a growing momentum toward IPv6 adoption, or is it still a moot issue for you guys? Irwin
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Irwin Lazar wrote: Since we're on the topic of IPv6, I wanted to gauge the current attitude of the ops. community toward its deployment. We're seeing a lot more interest from our enterprise clients in using v6, Yes, we see this too. This is in addition to the continuing rise in tunnels in use we see via our free IPv6 tunnel broker at tunnelbroker.com. However, the road-block seems to be the lack of ISPs that offer IPv6 services. Ha! Ahem, no. We have IPv6 routers deployed nationally and have even sold IPv6 direct connections, even in the presence of the ability to get a free tunnel, because enterprise type clients want to have a business class level of service where they can call you for support (among other reasons). I'd say the observable low usage of IPv6 compared to IPv4 is because IPv6 is still in its early product phase where early adopters are still considering how it works and what you can do with it and suppliers are giving out free samples (i.e. all the tunnel brokers and 6to4 gateways out there). does anyone see anything resembling a growing momentum toward IPv6 adoption, Yes, it's an gradual trend. We are seeing and increase over time in active tunnels and in average traffic per tunnel. Right now IPv6 is something to research, if the trend of increasing usage continues it will become commercially significant. How inevitable of a trend you think this is depends on if you think every cell phone, car, light switch, tv, washer, dryer, toaster, etc will eventually have it's own IP address. If you don't think that IP addresses allocations are based on scarcity then IPv4 should rule for ever. If on the other hand... Mike. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Yes, it's an gradual trend. We are seeing and increase over time in active tunnels and in average traffic per tunnel. Two easy things to drive v6 traffic: 1) switch your NNTP feeds to ipv6 2) put names which resolve to ipv6 addresses in your MX´s Both of these have little or no operational hazard. (SMTP fails over to v4 gracefully) Pete
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Two easy things to drive v6 traffic: 1) switch your NNTP feeds to ipv6 2) put names which resolve to ipv6 addresses in your MX´s Both of these have little or no operational hazard. (SMTP fails over to v4 gracefully) Driver #1 : Sell p00rn via IPv6 only. Sad but true. Content and use is all there is. - kurtis -
RE: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Daniel Golding wrote: Hmm. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with just about everything you've said :) . I haven't seen any enterprise folks demanding v6 - If VOIP and PDA's (?) use up their IP addresses, they can easily ask for more. The more you use, the more you get. There is no shortage of v4 space. As far as I know, we're still scheduled to run out of IPv4 address space this decade. But it's anybody's guess if this is really going to happen (even if you define running out as too hard to manage rather than nothing left). Address usage will follow an S curve: slow start, then steeper and steeper, until you come close to everyone that wants one has one and then it levels off again. The question is: where on the S are we now? There is something to be said for high (close to leveling off) because pretty much anyone who wants/needs IP in North America and Europe has it, but maybe we're still quite low, since lots of stuff that could benefit from IP connectivity is still standalone. (And then there's the rest of the world, of course.) Basically, major backbone networks will deploy v6 when it makes economic sense for them to do so. Right now, there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change in the near future. The question is not if they're going to carry v6, because they already are. The question is: will they do native v6, or tunnel it over v4? Since next to none of the high end stuff can do native v6 at wire speed, it's obviously still the latter now, but this is something that can change relatively easy. There are already many signs of impending v6 adoption: exchanges such as the AMS-IX are starting to do native v6, OSes have it built in, router vendors are implementing it deeper inside the hardware rather than at the main CPU level. However, noone is in a big hurry. That's probably a good thing. When we really need it, IPv6 will be good and ready. v6 is, currently, a solution in search of a problem. v4 space is being consumed slowly, but we are quite some time from a crisis. Of course, even when we consume all such ipv4 space, there are still expedients that can be used, including making v4 assets tradable and fungible. The problem is not so much address space (you can run a fortune 500 company behind a single address with NAT) but routing. This is still a big problem in IPv6 (as we're hoping to avoid the mess that is IPv4), but I think we're getting closer to a solution. Iljitsch van Beijnum
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
Driver #1 : Sell p00rn via IPv6 only. Sad but true. Content and use is all there is. Remember that multicast never happened either. How much it would take to sponsor free content over multicast to get it deployed. Don´t know if this would be approvable for government subsidies though. Pete
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
From: Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:32:38 +0300 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember that multicast never happened either. How much it would take to sponsor free content over multicast to get it deployed. Don´t know if this would be approvable for government subsidies though. But multicast HAS happened, but mostly in the enterprise. Interdomain multicast is still unusual outside the RE community. RE nets like Abilene, vBNS, and ESnet make heavy use of interdomain multicast, especially for the Access Grid (http://www.accessgrid.org). While the Access Grid tends to be mostly RE, there are a number of commercial providers supporting it and interdomain multicast. I do not believe that the Access Grid has yet been used for pr0n, but is is largely government subsidized. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634
