Re: IPv6 Irony.
Hugo Slabbert wrote: > Couldn't tell you: > > An error occurred while processing your request. > > Reference #50.b301e78e.1445526611.3125864 > Masataka: Is there an alt link? It sounds like it could be an > interesting read. Sorry, that should have been a temporally link and the permanent one should be: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2089037 Masataka Ohta
Re: IPv6 Irony.
Couldn't tell you: An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #50.b301e78e.1445526611.3125864 Masataka: Is there an alt link? It sounds like it could be an interesting read. -- Hugo h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on textsecure & redphone) On Thu 2015-Oct-22 12:34:07 +, Nicholas Warren wrote: Worth* Thank you, - Nich Warren -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Warren Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 7:26 AM To: Masataka Ohta Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IPv6 Irony. Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am currently connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it. Thank you, - Nich Warren > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM > To: Mark Andrews > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Irony. > > Mark Andrews wrote: > > >>> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... > >> > >> Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: > >> > >> 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if > not > >>all, customers > >> > >> 2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering > > > > Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically > > when a new prefix appears. > > Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces for > smooth ISP handover? > > > Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely > > using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0). > > How much is the customer support cost for the service? > > > This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to > > allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could > > even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to take > > names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules on > > demand as address associated with those names change. > > As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automatically renumber > multihomed hosts and routers > > The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator Number Allocation > Protocol HANA > http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/209/2089037/p124- > kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890A > D12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&C > FTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194 > > which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is doable. > > But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with NAT, 48 bit > address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can enjoy end to end > transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here. > > Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was not > necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes. > >Masataka Ohta signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RE: IPv6 Irony.
Worth* Thank you, - Nich Warren > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Warren > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 7:26 AM > To: Masataka Ohta > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: IPv6 Irony. > > Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am > currently > connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it. > > Thank you, > - Nich Warren > > > -Original Message- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta > > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM > > To: Mark Andrews > > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: IPv6 Irony. > > > > Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > >>> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... > > >> > > >> Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: > > >> > > >> 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if > > not > > >>all, customers > > >> > > >> 2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering > > > > > > Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically > > > when a new prefix appears. > > > > Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces > for > > smooth ISP handover? > > > > > Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely > > > using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0). > > > > How much is the customer support cost for the service? > > > > > This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to > > > allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could > > > even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to take > > > names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules on > > > demand as address associated with those names change. > > > > As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automatically > renumber > > multihomed hosts and routers > > > > The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator Number Allocation > > Protocol HANA > > http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/209/2089037/p124- > > > kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890A > > > D12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&C > > FTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194 > > > > which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is > doable. > > > > But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with NAT, 48 bit > > address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can enjoy end to end > > transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here. > > > > Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was not > > necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes. > > > > Masataka Ohta smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: IPv6 Irony.
Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am currently connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it. Thank you, - Nich Warren > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM > To: Mark Andrews > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Irony. > > Mark Andrews wrote: > > >>> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... > >> > >> Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: > >> > >> 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if > not > >>all, customers > >> > >> 2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering > > > > Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically > > when a new prefix appears. > > Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces for > smooth ISP handover? > > > Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely > > using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0). > > How much is the customer support cost for the service? > > > This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to > > allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could > > even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to take > > names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules on > > demand as address associated with those names change. > > As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automatically renumber > multihomed hosts and routers > > The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator Number Allocation > Protocol HANA > http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/209/2089037/p124- > kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890A > D12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&C > FTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194 > > which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is doable. > > But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with NAT, 48 bit > address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can enjoy end to end > transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here. > > Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was not > necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes. > > Masataka Ohta smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: IPv6 Irony.
Mark Andrews wrote: >>> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... >> >> Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: >> >> 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not >>all, customers >> >> 2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering > > Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically > when a new prefix appears. Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces for smooth ISP handover? > Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely > using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0). How much is the customer support cost for the service? > This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to > allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could > even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to > take names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules > on demand as address associated with those names change. As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automatically renumber multihomed hosts and routers The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator Number Allocation Protocol HANA http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/209/2089037/p124-kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890AD12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&CFTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194 which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is doable. But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with NAT, 48 bit address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can enjoy end to end transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here. Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was not necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes. Masataka Ohta
Re: IPv6 Irony.
In message <56263d2f.5000...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writes: > Max Tulyev wrote: > > > On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. > > Certainly. > > > Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... > > Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: > >1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not > all, customers > >2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically when a new prefix appears. Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0). Apple does this on Darwin. You have to supply the name and credentials (Preferences -> Sharing Edit. Tick "Use dynamic global hostname" and fill in the details). Microsoft does it with DNS UPDATE and GSS-TSIG after registering the machine in the Active Directory database. If two vendors can do this so can the rest. This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to take names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules on demand as address associated with those names change. Similarly with everything else that takes a address. It just requires that you think. "There is a address/prefix here. How do I automatically update it." The DNS is a pull mechanism with updates being pushed to it. It isn't that hard to design a generic push mechanism that applications could hook into to receive noticed of address updates pushed to them. >3) So stateful SLAAC > > > So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 > > adoption ;) > > Upgrade IETF to upgrade IPv6. > > Masataka Ohta > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Irony.
Max Tulyev wrote: > On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. Certainly. > Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not all, customers 2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering 3) So stateful SLAAC > So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 > adoption ;) Upgrade IETF to upgrade IPv6. Masataka Ohta
Re: IPv6 Irony.
> I bet most money is spent on hiring software developers to change/review all > BSS/NSS systems to adopt to IPv6 ;) You should hire a consultant who can then push the software developers to hire people to change/review [..etc..] ;-) Cheers, Sander
Re: IPv6 Irony.
I bet most money is spent on hiring software developers to change/review all BSS/NSS systems to adopt to IPv6 ;) Op 13-10-2015 om 13:11 schreef Paul S.: Anyone in a network administrator position struggling with IPv6 (and not willing to fix that out of their own initiative) has no business running any network. You should hire better staff. On 10/13/2015 06:56 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 adoption ;) On 13.10.15 06:17, Ca By wrote: On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher wrote: Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 has come.. I find my experience with support today Ironic. Oh wait.. Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted. :sigh: Tech support websites are long tail Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in high traffic use cases. Sighing about edge cases in the long tail with ipv6 ... Not sure what you expect. caused me outtages> CB
Re: IPv6 Irony.
Getting IPv6 to the masses without giving them the ability to get their IPv6 problems resolved seems not like a long-tail issue so much as a really poor choice of deployment plans. Just my $0.02. Owen > On Oct 12, 2015, at 20:17 , Ca By wrote: > > On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher wrote: > >> >> Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 >> has come.. I find my experience with support today >> Ironic. >> >> Oh wait.. >> >> Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. >> >> Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of >> IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And >> being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A >> static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted. >> >> :sigh: >> >> >> > Tech support websites are long tail > > Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in > high traffic use cases. > > Sighing about edge cases in the long tail with ipv6 ... Not sure what you > expect. > > outtages> > > CB
Re: IPv6 Irony.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Yucong Sun wrote: > I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic > going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass? IMHO it only helps > high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of > their big box with advanced IPv6 license. It has absolutely no help > with the long tail crowd, which really need more push and incentive to > support ipv6. > > Cheers. > Which "big box" has an "advanced IPv6 license"? CB
Re: IPv6 Irony.
I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass? IMHO it only helps high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of their big box with advanced IPv6 license. It has absolutely no help with the long tail crowd, which really need more push and incentive to support ipv6. Cheers.
Re: IPv6 Irony.
Anyone in a network administrator position struggling with IPv6 (and not willing to fix that out of their own initiative) has no business running any network. You should hire better staff. On 10/13/2015 06:56 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 adoption ;) On 13.10.15 06:17, Ca By wrote: On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher wrote: Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 has come.. I find my experience with support today Ironic. Oh wait.. Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted. :sigh: Tech support websites are long tail Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in high traffic use cases. Sighing about edge cases in the long tail with ipv6 ... Not sure what you expect. CB
Re: IPv6 Irony.
Well, especially our copmany hire admins already familiar with IPv6. But yes, some of our friends company had to upgrade admins too. On 13.10.15 13:22, Stephen Satchell wrote: > On 10/13/2015 02:56 AM, Max Tulyev wrote: >> So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 >> adoption;) > > Was that a typo? Didn't you have to upgrade your network admins, too? > >
Re: IPv6 Irony.
On 10/13/2015 02:56 AM, Max Tulyev wrote: So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 adoption;) Was that a typo? Didn't you have to upgrade your network admins, too?
Re: IPv6 Irony.
On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 adoption ;) On 13.10.15 06:17, Ca By wrote: > On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher wrote: > >> >> Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 >> has come.. I find my experience with support today >> Ironic. >> >> Oh wait.. >> >> Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. >> >> Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of >> IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And >> being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A >> static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted. >> >> :sigh: >> >> >> > Tech support websites are long tail > > Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in > high traffic use cases. > > Sighing about edge cases in the long tail with ipv6 ... Not sure what you > expect. > > outtages> > > CB >
Re: IPv6 Irony.
On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher wrote: > > Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 > has come.. I find my experience with support today > Ironic. > > Oh wait.. > > Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. > > Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of > IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And > being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A > static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted. > > :sigh: > > > Tech support websites are long tail Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in high traffic use cases. Sighing about edge cases in the long tail with ipv6 ... Not sure what you expect. CB
IPv6 Irony.
Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 has come.. I find my experience with support today Ironic. Oh wait.. Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted. :sigh:
