Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Jared Mauch wrote:


I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my phone, 
or at least v4v6 APN setting.


That's not how it's done on Apple, they (together with the operator) 
control the APN settings. There are several mobile networks that run 
IPv4v6 on iOS (all LTE enabled devices support this) for almost a year (I 
believe it was iOS 8.3 in March 2015 that started to support this for more 
general 3GPP providers).


But getting IPv4v6 bearer working in a mobile network is non-trivial and 
it still brings the CGN mess, so a lot of mobile providers prefer to 
use IPv6 only with translation to reach IPv4 sites. That's where Cameron 
is coming from, and it's perfectly understanable mode of operation.


Apple seems to be working to make IPv6 only+AFTR happen and I have good 
hopes that they'll succeed in 2016.


To some other poster regarding IPv6 adoption by people settings up tunnels 
etc. In my experience, if you put "enable IPv6"-button in the self-care 
portal, around 1% will enable this. Very few are interested, and rightly 
so. IPv6 needs to be engineered and enabled by the ISP as a normal part of 
Internet access, not something the customer has to actively choose.


If the customer buys their own CPE and it doesn't support IPv6, well, then 
that customer will have to fix that themselves, but the ISP needs to make 
sure that whatever equipment/access they deliver, they need to support 
IPv6 on it.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Bruce Curtis]

This page is fun to play with.  The 3rd order polynomial currently results in 
the most optimistic projection and 700 days in the future is enough for a good 
view of the results.  The page is for the US.


https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php?metric=q=us


> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Tomas Podermanski  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>according to Google's statistics
> (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) on 31st December
> 2015 the IPv6 penetration reached 10% for the very first time. Just a
> little reminder. On 20th Nov 2012 the number was 1%. In December we also
> celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPv6 standardization - RFC 1883.
> 
> I'm wondering when we reach another significant milestone - 50% :-)
> 
> Tomas
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject:  Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100
> From: Tomas Podermanski 
> To:   nanog@nanog.org
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first
> time when native IPv6 on google statistics
> (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some
> might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-)
> 
> T.
> 
> 
> 

---
Bruce Curtis bruce.cur...@ndsu.edu
Certified NetAnalyst II701-231-8527
North Dakota State University

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:27 , George Metz  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
>> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
>> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
>> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat?  carrot not stick.
>> 
>> randy
>> 
> 
> The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and
> enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated
> sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit
> numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done,
> and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but
> the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading
> stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying
> "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien
> language!"
> 
> At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has
> a chance to become a swan.

I haven’t been involved in a single executive briefing where hex or the length
of the addresses came up as an issue.

This is a total red herring.

Decision makers aren’t paying attention to what the addresses look like. Most of
them likely wouldn’t recognize an IPv4 address if you showed them one.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Owen DeLong wrote:

Good that one of them is finally backing down on the previous stupidity, 
but for a variety of reasons, I wish it had been T-mo.


Why? IPv6 only with IPv4 transported over it is clearly the way to go for 
the future, it makes more sense to have Apple support this mode once for 
their devices, than it is for every mobile provider to have to support 
IPv4v6 with all the drawbacks, and then migrate people again to IPv6+AFTR 
solution in a few years.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 00:09 , Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Jared Mauch wrote:
> 
>> I for one welcome the iOS update that brings v6 APN native access to my 
>> phone, or at least v4v6 APN setting.
> 
> That's not how it's done on Apple, they (together with the operator) control 
> the APN settings. There are several mobile networks that run IPv4v6 on iOS 
> (all LTE enabled devices support this) for almost a year (I believe it was 
> iOS 8.3 in March 2015 that started to support this for more general 3GPP 
> providers).
> 
> But getting IPv4v6 bearer working in a mobile network is non-trivial and it 
> still brings the CGN mess, so a lot of mobile providers prefer to use IPv6 
> only with translation to reach IPv4 sites. That's where Cameron is coming 
> from, and it's perfectly understanable mode of operation.

Except that the only mode of translation Cameron is willing to support is the 
one which isn’t available in iOS, so we have a religious war between T-Mo and 
Apple where T-Mo says “Support 464Xlat or suffer” and Apple says “No, you 
support one of the mechanisms already supported in iOS”.

> Apple seems to be working to make IPv6 only+AFTR happen and I have good hopes 
> that they'll succeed in 2016.

Good that one of them is finally backing down on the previous stupidity, but 
for a variety of reasons, I wish it had been T-mo.

Owen

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[George, Wes]

On 1/4/16, 11:54 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Neil Harris"
 wrote:


>I can only imagine the scale of the schadenfreude IPv6 proponents will
>be able to feel once they're able to start talking about IPv4 as a
>legacy protocol.

*start*?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/n3pb/sets/72157634324914351/

:-)


Wes


Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
---






This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:

Host Virtualvr.org 
Softlayer   softlayer.com 
Linode  linode.com 

Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
from people complaining on this list.

Owen

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig  wrote:
> 
> I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine
> networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO.
> 
> [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking
> --
> James Hartig

Possible Level3 Latency and Packet Loss

[Eric Rogers]

I have several customers that have contacted us about VoIP quality, and
I have moved BGP away from Level3, and even through Cogent and/or HE to
try and bypass but it still goes back into Level3's network.

 

Is there any way I can get an engineer from Level3 to contact me to help
troubleshoot this?  The NOC will not talk with me as I am not a Customer
of Record.

 

Eric Rogers



  

www.pdsconnect.me

(317) 831-3000 x200

 

RE: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Steve Mikulasik]

They don't need to actually implement it, just say IPv6 increases ranking. SEO 
is mostly BS anyways, I doubt anyone would notice.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 4:33 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight bonus 
in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a business 
reason to implement IPv6.

Regards,

Baldur

GPON vs. GEPON

[nanog-isp]

Hello all,

For those of you with optical last mile networks that are familiar with both 
GPON and GEPON, would you mind sharing experiences of the differences between 
GPON and GEPON, especially from an operative perspective?

For arguments sake let's assume bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor 
compatibility and purchase price differences aren't of major interest. 

Thanks,

Jared

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Mansoor Nathani]

Aren't IBM and Softlayer one and the same these days?

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:
>
> Host Virtualvr.org 
> Softlayer   softlayer.com 
> Linode  linode.com 
>
> Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
> from people complaining on this list.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig  wrote:
> >
> > I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine
> > networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO.
> >
> > [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking
> > --
> > James Hartig
>
>

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Jared Mauch]

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:
> 
>   Host Virtualvr.org 
>   Softlayer   softlayer.com 
>   Linode  linode.com 
> 
> Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
> from people complaining on this list.

Yes, the echo chamber of NANOG, that sometimes makes it out further :)

I’ve heard rumblings that Amazon is slowly making progress in the IPv6 front
and others are marching forward here.  I think this will largely be driven
by the mobile marketing machine.  There’s a lot of things converging at once
and I expect 2016 to see major shifts in “IP Classic” -> IPv6 traffic.  We
saw a doubling of IPv6 bitrate on our network just by the iOS change in how
they handled happy eyeballs.

I’m hoping that Frontier brings v6 to their service area when they
close the deal on FiOS purchase from VZ.

For me on the marketing side: If you expect your users to visit from a
mobile device, your website and resources should be available and 
optimized for IPv6.

- Jared

Re: [NANOG] IPv4 subnets for lease?

[Javier J]

Is there anyone who leases to companies in the US?

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Fredrik Widell  wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Nick Ellermann wrote:
>
>
> Hi.
>
> We lease /24's or more to customers since many years, but as someone later
> in the thread commented,
> spammers will use this opportunity if they can, so we limit our customers
> to Sweden nowadays, and always check their earlier reputation before
> leasing space.
> If you have Swedish customers you are welcome to send in an application.
>
> ( http://webb.resilans.se/registry/order-eng.html )
>
>
>
>
>
> We have customers asking to lease IP space for BGP transit with us and
>> other peers. But they are struggling to get at a minimum even a Class C,
>> even though they have their own ASN. We don't have large amounts of free
>> IPv4 space to lease out to a single customer in most cases anymore. Hope to
>> at least introduce these customers to some contacts that may be able to
>> help.
>> Do we know of any reputable sources that are leasing or selling IPv4
>> subnets as small as a /24 to satisfy their diversity needs? Thanks!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Nick Ellermann - CTO & VP Cloud Services
>> BroadAspect
>>
>> E: nellerm...@broadaspect.com
>> P: 703-297-4639
>> F: 703-996-4443
>>
>> THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
>> MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
>> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and
>> its attachments from all computers.
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
> Mvh
>
> Fredrik Widell Resilans AB http://www.resilans.se/
> mail:   i...@resilans.se , fred...@resilans.se
> phone:  +46 8 688 11 80
>

Re: TransPacific Partnership

[tglas...@earthlink.net]

I wouldn't worry about it every byte if the surveillance data is tied to the 
patent fraud around Us6370629 imho.

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Matt Hoppes" 
To: "Tom Berryman" 
Cc: 
Subject: TransPacific Partnership
Date: Sun, Jan 3, 2016 16:07

My understanding was if it all goes through here in the US as proposed ISPs 
would have to provide real time monitoring of data   Not as part of CALEA but 
as part of NSA surveilance. 

> On Jan 3, 2016, at 18:54, Tom Berryman  wrote:
> 
> G'Day Matt,
> 
> I'm here in Australia - and yes we are all well aware of the "benefits" of 
> the TPP.
> 
> What do you mean by burned?
> As in the additional accounting and administration overhead of doing business 
> with operators in TPP participating countries?
> 
> Also, will you be attending PTC?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Berryman
> 
> 
> Tom Berryman | CTO
> Connectivity I.T. PTY LTD
> ABN: 41128650635
> 
> 1300 22 46 00 (+61356224600) | t...@connectivityit.com.au | AS-58511
> www.connectivityit.com.au | facebook.com/connectivityit | 
> twitter.com/connectivityit
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Monday, 4 January 2016 10:32 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: TransPacific Partnership
> 
> Has anyone heard any more regarding the TPP and the proposed additional 
> monitoring burdens that would be put on ISPs?

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong]

Yes and no…

Yes, IBM bot Softlayer.

No, IBM datacenters that predate Softlayer still can’t spell IPv6.
Softlayer datacenters all had IPv6 before IBM got to them.

Owen

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 14:53 , Mansoor Nathani  wrote:
> 
> Aren't IBM and Softlayer one and the same these days?
> 
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as:
> 
> Host Virtualvr.org   >
> Softlayer   softlayer.com  
> >
> Linode  linode.com   >
> 
> Places like Amazon and Google and IBM would get the message faster than
> from people complaining on this list.
> 
> Owen
> 
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 08:15 , James Hartig  > > wrote:
> >
> > I would hope that Google would first fix the fact that "Compute Engine
> > networks do not support IPv6 at all."[1] before doing anything with SEO.
> >
> > [1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking 
> > 
> > --
> > James Hartig
> 
>