Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 5/14/2011 6:41 PM, Jima wrote:

On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.


For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype,
BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app using RTMFP to
reach peers, sure.


1. There are SIP phones that support IPv6, e.g., 
http://wiki.snom.com/Networking/IPv6


Sure, but NAT64 doesn't let SIP phones on an IPv6-only network talk to 
SIP phones on an IP4-only network.




2. Exactly whose fault is it that RTMFP can't reach peers via IPv6? 
(Granted, I'm not sure RTMFP is the best argument for your point 
anyway, since apparently symmetric NAT monkey-wrenches it, too: 
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3602495 )


RTMFP can reach peers via IPv6... but it can't talk between an IPv6-only 
peer that is behind a NAT64 and an IPv4-only peer.


And that would be the fault of NAT64, which for all of the applications 
I mentioned (and more) made the seriously wrong assumption that every 
IPv4 address is looked up in a DNS server.


Matthew Kaufman

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Robert Drake]

On 5/10/2011 12:57 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

Your suggestion has two main disadvantages:
1) it doesn't work on some platforms, because input ACL won't stop ND
learn/solicit -- obviously this is bad
2) it requires you to configure a potentially large input ACL on every
single interface on the box, and adjust that ACL whenever you
provision more IPv6 addresses for end-hosts -- kinda like not having a
control-plane filter, only worse



Might need to rewrite some portion of ND to do this, but can't a cookie 
be encoded in the ND packet and no state kept?  That should reduce the 
problem to one of a packet flood which everyone already deals with now.


Sorry if this has been suggested/shot down before.  The ND problems keep 
being mentioned and I never see this proposed and it seems like an 
obvious solution.


Robert

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Jima]

On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.


For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype,
BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app using RTMFP to
reach peers, sure.


1. There are SIP phones that support IPv6, e.g., 
http://wiki.snom.com/Networking/IPv6


2. Exactly whose fault is it that RTMFP can't reach peers via IPv6? 
(Granted, I'm not sure RTMFP is the best argument for your point anyway, 
since apparently symmetric NAT monkey-wrenches it, too: 
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3602495 )


 Jima

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Jima]

On 2011-05-14 13:25, Jim Gettys wrote:

On 05/14/2011 01:59 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only
applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6
and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be able
to do over IPv6 is print.

>

And I've been able to print using IPv6 on the $200 HP ethernet/wireless
printer I bought over 18 months ago...


 And a $100 Samsung laser printer here, sold as long ago as 15 months. 
 (Also an expensive color laser copier Ricoh started producing in 2007, 
although I don't know if it shipped with an IPv6-capable firmware.) 
Even printing isn't the last holdout. :-)


 Home entertainment devices, on the other hand... :-(

 Jima

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Paul Vixie]

Jim Gettys  writes:

> ... we have to get naming squared away.  Typing IPv6 addresses is for the
> birds, and having everyone have to go fuss with a DNS provider isn't a
> viable solution.

perhaps i'm too close to the problem because that solution looks quite
viable to me.  dns providers who don't keep up with the market (which means
ipv6 and dnssec in this context) will lose business to those who do.
-- 
Paul Vixie
KI6YSY

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Robert Bonomi]

> From: Paul Vixie 
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 17:06:45 +
>
> > From: Marshall Eubanks 
> > Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400
> > 
> > I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
> > IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ?
>
> is there an online betting mechanism we could use, that we all think will
> still be in business decades from now when the truth is known?  if we're
> going to start picking the month and year when IPv4 is the new "PDP-11
> compatibility mode" (that's a VAX reference), where the winner is whoever
> comes closest without going over, my pick is July 2021, and i'm in for $50.
>

You could probably interest the University of Iowa College of Business in
it.  See: 

The genesis of of this project was a 'futures' exchange on candidates for
the office of President of the United States.  It's had an amazing track-
record of identifying 'winners' there.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[William Herrin]

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Paul Vixie  wrote:
>> From: Marshall Eubanks 
>> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400
>>
>> I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
>> IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ?
>
> is there an online betting mechanism we could use, that we all think will
> still be in business decades from now when the truth is known?

http://longbets.org/

> if we're
> going to start picking the month and year when IPv4 is the new "PDP-11
> compatibility mode" (that's a VAX reference), where the winner is whoever
> comes closest without going over, my pick is July 2021, and i'm in for $50.

Two suggestions:

1. Predict the condition, not the date. In other words, not "Condition
X will occur at Y" but "At Y, condition X will be true." The problem
with predicting the date is that the bet can't close until the
condition occurs. That leaves an unbounded case.

2. Measurability. How do you measure, "IPv4 is the new PDP-11
compatibility mode?" Try something like, "In the month of July 2021,
X% of the network traffic by packet count on the top 5 Internet
carriers will contain IPv4 packets. "

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Jim Gettys]

On 05/14/2011 01:59 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

dditional carrier NAT in the future.

I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only 
applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6 
and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be able 
to do over IPv6 is print.
And I've been able to print using IPv6 on the $200 HP ethernet/wireless 
printer I bought over 18 months ago...


Times are changing.

But we have to get naming squared away.  Typing IPv6 addresses is for 
the birds, and having everyone have to go fuss with a DNS provider isn't 
a viable solution.

- Jim

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Jared Mauch]

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:10:00AM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
> >nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.
> >
> >
> 
> For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype,
> BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app using RTMFP to
> reach peers, sure.

As has been mentioned here, the lack of reaching any of these can
be seen as a plus, including the various advert networks.  Instead of loading
that flash video iframe you might get content.  And it's much better now
then when you were using wais/gopher/cern httpd in the day.

- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:



Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with 
nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.





For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype, 
BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app using RTMFP to 
reach peers, sure.


Matthew Kaufman

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 14 mei 2011, at 18:47, Paul Vixie wrote:


folks who want
to run V6 only and still be "on the internet" will need proxies for  
a long
while.  folks who want to run V6 only *today* and not have any  
proxies *today*
are sort of on their own -- the industry will not cater to market  
non-forces.


And clearly that situation can be kept that way for a long time by  
simply not serving them anything over IPv6.


But is that wat we want?

Currently IPv4 is pretty good but that's not going to last once 1.5  
NATs on average between any two points grows to 3.8 of them, with 1.7  
starved for address/port combinations*. At that point you can  
technically still be 100% connected using just IPv4, but it won't be  
much fun anymore.


* numbers pulled out of the air by yours truly, but based on two  
consumers with home NAT today and with additional carrier NAT in the  
future.


I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only  
applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6  
and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be able  
to do over IPv6 is print. It used to be that IPv6 pingtimes were 2 - 3  
times worse than IPv4 pingtimes. They're pretty much the same 80% of  
the time now. I used to have 8 IPv4 addresses, enough for most of my  
computers. I have one now, with mandatory NAT. When I move later this  
year I may very well only have a partial IPv4 address.


The times are a-changing.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[John Levine]

>I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
>IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ?

Probably never.  What would be the incentive to turn off the NAT
gateways?

R's,
John

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 EDT, Marshall Eubanks said:
> I think that the real question is, when will people who are running IPv4
> only not be on the Internet by this definition ?

Any 36 bit machines left on the net?



pgpe167pAfCop.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Network Equipment Discussion (HP and L2/10G)

[Simon Leinen]

Deepak Jain writes:
> The wrinkle here is that I can't use a normal enterprise 10G switch
> because of the need for DWDM optics (ideally 80km style).

80km DWDM optics in SFP+ format should be available now or RSN.  Search
engines turn up a few purported vendors.  The ones I found conform to
the 100GHz grid, but 50GHz ones should be coming too.

Haven't tried any of those myself though.
-- 
Simon.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Cameron Byrne]

On May 14, 2011 9:28 AM, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" 
wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> >> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I
get
> >> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten
by
> >> no .  So that's -1 from me.
> >>
> >
> > Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.
>
> Haha.  I might still do UUCP and listen to a talk from Eric Allman
currently,
> yet I can send you Email and that's supposed to be over the Internet only
> these days, I just heard.  So I am clearly online.
>
> I assume you don't understand the options some people have or how much
content
> might be available on IPv6 already and might have been for years.
>
> /bz
>

Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with nat64/dns64,
there are several empirical accounts on the web.

I have be running a beta service of it for over a year and my experience is
that it works very well for web and email and nearly everything I do on
smartphone , but not all things for sure.

Cb
—---
http://bit.ly/igQBx4 -- T-Mobile USA ipv6 beta.

> --
> Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
> Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
>
>

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Paul Vixie]

> From: Marshall Eubanks 
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 13:02:16 -0400
> 
> I think that the real question is, when will people who are running
> IPv4 only not be on the Internet by this definition ?

is there an online betting mechanism we could use, that we all think will
still be in business decades from now when the truth is known?  if we're
going to start picking the month and year when IPv4 is the new "PDP-11
compatibility mode" (that's a VAX reference), where the winner is whoever
comes closest without going over, my pick is July 2021, and i'm in for $50.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Marshall Eubanks]

On May 14, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> Matthew Kaufman  writes:
> 
>>> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I get
>>> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
>>> no .  So that's -1 from me.
>> 
>> Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.
> 
> in  we see:
> 
> (*2)Q: But what IS the Internet?
>A: "It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive,
>symmetric, closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP
>packet from'". Seth Breidbart
> 
> by which definition, matthew's observation would be correct.  folks who want
> to run V6 only and still be "on the internet" will need proxies for a long
> while.  folks who want to run V6 only *today* and not have any proxies *today*
> are sort of on their own -- the industry will not cater to market non-forces.

I think that the real question is, when will people who are running IPv4 only 
not be on the Internet by this
definition ?

Regards
Marshall


> -- 
> Paul Vixie
> KI6YSY
> 
> 

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Paul Vixie]

Matthew Kaufman  writes:

>> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I get
>> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
>> no .  So that's -1 from me.
>
> Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.

in  we see:

(*2)Q: But what IS the Internet?
A: "It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive,
symmetric, closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP
packet from'". Seth Breidbart

by which definition, matthew's observation would be correct.  folks who want
to run V6 only and still be "on the internet" will need proxies for a long
while.  folks who want to run V6 only *today* and not have any proxies *today*
are sort of on their own -- the industry will not cater to market non-forces.
-- 
Paul Vixie
KI6YSY

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On May 14, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

>> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I get
>> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
>> no .  So that's -1 from me.
>> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.

Haha.  I might still do UUCP and listen to a talk from Eric Allman currently,
yet I can send you Email and that's supposed to be over the Internet only
these days, I just heard.  So I am clearly online.

I assume you don't understand the options some people have or how much content
might be available on IPv6 already and might have been for years.

/bz

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
 Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Matthew Kaufman]

>>> 
>> 
> 
> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I get
> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
> no .  So that's -1 from me.
> 

Sounds to me like you're not on The Internet any more.

Matthew Kaufman

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On May 14, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> On May 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> 
>> On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> 
 In other words, Igor can't turn on  records generally until there are
 182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of  records.
 
>>> 
>>> There will be no IPv6-only users. There will only be users with better IPv6
>>> connectivity than IPv4 connectivity.
>> 
>> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I get
>> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
>> no .  So that's -1 from me.
> 
> Unfortunately, Igor may not see your message since he doesn't have
> an IPv6  record for his MX. ;-)

But s0.nanog.org does, and mailman.nanog.org is v4 exclusively and one of my
MX still has legacy IP as well.  But the message wasn't for Igor anyway.

I was just mumbling about the fact that the IPv6 advocacy activists and people
in charge of v6 rollouts should eat more of their dog-food to make sure that
we'll actually be ready for _more_ IPv6 only users rather than falling into the
same tarpit we hit for DS in the near future.  The web strangely is the least
thing I care about.

/bz

PS: I hope all of the big guys will actually have  glue records for their 
domains in DNS for world IPv6 day.  So far most of them are failing that test
badly which means the brokeness of IPv6 starts at the very beginning:(

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.

Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

On May 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:

> On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> 
>>> In other words, Igor can't turn on  records generally until there are
>>> 182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of  records.
>>> 
>> 
>> There will be no IPv6-only users. There will only be users with better IPv6
>> connectivity than IPv4 connectivity.
> 
> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore.  I get
> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten by
> no .  So that's -1 from me.
> 
> /bz
> 
> -- 
> Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
> Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.

Unfortunately, Igor may not see your message since he doesn't have
an IPv6  record for his MX. ;-)

Owen