Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 8 jun 2011, at 7:42, Christopher Palmer wrote: I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent content access and organizational justification. You have to remember that the content guys need few addresses and once they have them they rarely need more, and IPv6 or not is pretty much a binary thing: yes for everyone, no for everyone. It's the opposite for consumer ISPs: they need tons of addresses on an ongoing basis but they can (for instance) give IPv6 to new users while not changing anything for existing users. So once some hurdles such as the limited availability of IPv6-capable CPEs and a plan on how to provision IPv6 are taken the ISPs have a lot of incentive to roll out IPv6 while the content guys can conceivably stay on IPv4 for a long time. The fact that IPv6 client to IPv4 server is an easy problem but the other way around a very hard one also points in this direction. BTW, how are you guys dealing with path MTU discovery for IPv6? I've seen a few sites that have problems with this, such as www.nist.gov, but you guys seem ok.
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Christopher Palmer wrote: The title of this ongoing thread is giving me heart palpitations. Content access over IPv6 may help justify ISPs investing in IPv6, but it in no means is a prerequisite technically. LSNs are fine when deployed in parallel with IPv6 IMHO. There has to be a pathway to good networking. How many of them are you planning on maintaining? May I quote you on this after you've been doing so for a year and received 2 or three lovely FISA subpoenas for your LSN logs? To Lorenzo's point - I really think the next big hurdle in the transition is getting access numbers to something respectable. World IPv6 Day has only be going for a few hours, but things seem to be going fine, and it's our hope (currently) to keep www.xbox.com available over IPv6 indefinitely. I expect other participants will keep IPv6 enabled for some or all of their respective portfolios. I agree with Lorenzo to a point, but... Access will happen in due time by virtue of IPv4 runout. If content is available dual-stack ahead of that, it dramatically reduces the need for (and load on) LSN. If it is not, then, LSN is going to be a much much uglier situation to an extent that it might even have a catch-22 effect on IPv6 deployment in the eyeball networks. This leads me to worry that in 6-18 months we'll be in a position where a lot of major content has permanently transitioned, and we're still at 1% access range. That will be awkward. Not really. I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent content access and organizational justification. I don't think any of them are really waiting for that. However, I do think getting to that point is actually more critical at this juncture than getting the eyeball networks fully deployed. Owen christopher.pal...@microsoft.com IPv6 @ Microsoft -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM To: Lorenzo Colitti Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day. What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%. How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3% LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate. LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on . LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN. Owen
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
As long % IPv6 content % IPv6 eyeballs, I think the eyeball counts will naturally go up over time. As we're seeing today, content providers can add IPv6 access to a greater percentage of their content in a few months than what ISPs can do with a percentage of their customer base. Frank -Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day On 6/7/2011 9:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote: Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day. What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%. How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3% 0.3% of access is fine, so long as the margin of broken stacks and deployments is low enough. If they find that keeping the content dual stacked has acceptable problems, then it's just a matter of access gearing up to match. The largest fear for content is to dual stack and have service levels go down. The only data we really get from this day is a better understanding of the service levels when dual stacked at major content sites. Some access providers may also determine mistakes in their networks, or isolation or MTU issues through transit providers. Jack
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... Cameron Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... cough DS-lite. Cameron Cameron Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Cameron, On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... cough DS-lite. Cameron AF translators are in the same class of technology as LSN -- to me they are the same (_NAT_64). Someone who thinks you will be successful in selling an Internet with pure ipv6 only access today to consumers must be living on a different planet. Cheers, Martin
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... Doesn't solve the problem unless your users are all on cell-phone browsers that don't do a lot of the things most users do with real internet connections. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... Doesn't solve the problem unless your users are all on cell-phone browsers that don't do a lot of the things most users do with real internet connections. Most of my users are on cell phone browsers :) Furthermore, i can choose which ones get ipv4-only NAT44 and which get ipv6-only + NAT64 Now, only if there was major cell phone OEM support Also, i would like to extend the idea that as IPv6 becomes dominant in the next few years (pending access networks), the need for IPv4 access will wane and LSN for the IPv4 will become more acceptable as IPv4 is just the long tail. Cameron
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... cough DS-lite. DS-lite is a slightly less pathological form of LSN. It's still LSN, it just removes the second NAT at the CPE. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't need LSN. The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... Doesn't solve the problem unless your users are all on cell-phone browsers that don't do a lot of the things most users do with real internet connections. Most of my users are on cell phone browsers :) Furthermore, i can choose which ones get ipv4-only NAT44 and which get ipv6-only + NAT64 Now, only if there was major cell phone OEM support Also, i would like to extend the idea that as IPv6 becomes dominant in the next few years (pending access networks), the need for IPv4 access will wane and LSN for the IPv4 will become more acceptable as IPv4 is just the long tail. Agreed... However, where I differ is that I believe it is content and services which will drive the ability for IPv4 to be considered long tail. If all of the content and services were IPv6-capable today, the need for LSN would be very near zero (limited to the consumer devices that need to be upgraded/replaced to understand IPv6.) However, as it stands currently, a consumer would not consider an IPv6 connection with NAT64 or other LSN to be equivalent to what they expect today (unless they're on a cell-phone where they already expect the internet experience to be completely degraded). Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 6/8/2011 12:42 AM, Christopher Palmer wrote: I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent content access and organizational justification. To be fair, I think any ISP worth it's salt is working on IPv6 access roll-outs, but there are a lot of considerations. A content provider generally doesn't want to hurt their own connectivity and service quality, which is why using IPv6 on the main sites has generally been frowned upon. An ISP has to deal with customers when these problems arise and actually absorbs the costs of dealing with them. As such, it's not unreasonable for many ISPs to delay rollouts to all customers. It's my honest belief that we have natural progression. The peering arrangements are getting sorted out, IPv6 pathing is slowly reaching par with IPv4 pathing in the largest networks. Content providers are testing and verifying service levels with dual stack. Access networks are deploying IPv6 up to the edge and in some cases releasing it to the customers. ARIN is fixing their policies. It could be better, but I think everyone is on the right track. Jack
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:47:43 PDT, Owen DeLong said: For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN. The cynic in me says that guarantees widespread deployment of LSN. :) pgpfiixYhziVp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 08:25:59PM +, john.herb...@usc-bt.com wrote: Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] spake: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... This does rather assume that users can access Google/Bing (both IPv6 day participants) to search for a solution to the problems they are experiencing, and then that they can actually access the KB article... Given that support.microsoft.com is v4-only, the latter isn't the problem. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Two thing about this one after have read the manual of this product. This is probably for the american market. I'm in europe. Second, nowhere in their manual is the word ipv6 or v6 found. Have a ZyXEL VSG1432 right behind me where the IPv6 works pretty good (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem vendors could stand improving their GUI. Frank -Original Message- From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. How fun is that? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -- //fredan
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
I'm in the US -- could very well be available only in the N.A. market. Manuals have not been updated -- it's running with pre-GA code. Frank -Original Message- From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:45 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: frnk...@iname.com Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day Two thing about this one after have read the manual of this product. This is probably for the american market. I'm in europe. Second, nowhere in their manual is the word ipv6 or v6 found. Have a ZyXEL VSG1432 right behind me where the IPv6 works pretty good (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem vendors could stand improving their GUI. Frank -Original Message- From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. How fun is that? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -- //fredan
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] spake: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... This does rather assume that users can access Google/Bing (both IPv6 day participants) to search for a solution to the problems they are experiencing, and then that they can actually access the KB article... j.
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
We're very concerned about permanently configuring hosts into a non-standard state. That is one reason our World IPv6 Day fix is only a temporary modification of the Windows sorting order and isn't being pushed through Windows Update. Permanently disabling IPv6 as a solution to the IPv6 brokenness issue is NOT recommended. Turning a transitory problem (hosts on broken networks) into a permanent problem (hosts that don't use IPv6 correctly) - risks creating a serious long-term headache. christopher.pal...@microsoft.com Program Manager IPv6 @ Windows -Original Message- From: Jima [mailto:na...@jima.tk] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:21 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH), it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the (as they themselves claim) 0.1% of users who may encounter issues next Wednesday: http://blogs.technet.com/b/ipv6/archive/2011/02/11/ipv6-day.aspx Fun as it might be to take it out of context, at least they're not telling people to disable IPv6 entirely (like some organizations still are). Jima
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day. What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%. How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3%
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 6/7/2011 9:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote: Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day. What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%. How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3% 0.3% of access is fine, so long as the margin of broken stacks and deployments is low enough. If they find that keeping the content dual stacked has acceptable problems, then it's just a matter of access gearing up to match. The largest fear for content is to dual stack and have service levels go down. The only data we really get from this day is a better understanding of the service levels when dual stacked at major content sites. Some access providers may also determine mistakes in their networks, or isolation or MTU issues through transit providers. Jack
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day. What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%. How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3% LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate. LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on . LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Owen, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount of IPv4 addresses = LSN required. Regards, Martin
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
The title of this ongoing thread is giving me heart palpitations. Content access over IPv6 may help justify ISPs investing in IPv6, but it in no means is a prerequisite technically. LSNs are fine when deployed in parallel with IPv6 IMHO. There has to be a pathway to good networking. To Lorenzo's point - I really think the next big hurdle in the transition is getting access numbers to something respectable. World IPv6 Day has only be going for a few hours, but things seem to be going fine, and it's our hope (currently) to keep www.xbox.com available over IPv6 indefinitely. I expect other participants will keep IPv6 enabled for some or all of their respective portfolios. This leads me to worry that in 6-18 months we'll be in a position where a lot of major content has permanently transitioned, and we're still at 1% access range. That will be awkward. I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent content access and organizational justification. christopher.pal...@microsoft.com IPv6 @ Microsoft -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM To: Lorenzo Colitti Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day. What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%. How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3% LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate. LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on . LSN is required when access providers come across the following two combined constraints: 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires it however some do so planning to handle the exceptions as efficiently as possible is a good thing to do. I disagree. I look forward to a day when all home users by default have a public IPv6 address for each of their machines and hopefully enough to support multiple subnets within the home. Until then, IPv4 service without at least one public IP is degraded at best compared to what most people consider normal residential internet access today (which, frankly, is degraded at best compared to what I consider normal internet access). I've got two applications that won't work behind a LSN. A sip phone and a 6in4 tunnel however I'm not typical. You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The following very common applications are known to have problems with LSN: Playstation Network X-Box Live AIM/iChat/FaceTime SIP/Vonage/other VoIP services The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes Peer to Peer (torrent, etc.) Other less common applications also have problems: HTTP servers SMTP servers Back to my Mac VNC Tunnels Looking at 6to4 and auto tunnels they really are a small percentage of customers that could be auto detected by the ISP and be put into the exception pool prior to enabling LSN. Most CPE routers today don't enable 6to4 (they either don't support IPv6 let alone 6to4 or its not turned on by default). As for directly connected machines many of then still require 6to4 to be turned on by hand (XP, Mac OS). While this is true, I'm not sure it's all that relevant. Most ISPs I have talked to in the US are dreading the deployment of LSN and not planning to deploy it by default except to the extent absolutely necessary to meet customer demand. What's easier for the ISP, detecting the customers that use protocol 41 today and automatically adding them to a exception pool or fielding the support calls? Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. Owen Mark Without any commitments to cite, plan for the worst and hope for the best. Cb If I were doing it I would also have checkboxes for some of the more common reasons and include IPv6 connectivity as one then have a 6 month grace period once the ISP offers IPv6 connectivity before removing that as a valid reason for needing a address that is not behind the LSN. LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core network of several ISPs, and most didn't yet consider it as optional. Nor are ready for v6 connectivity to residential customers, though. For users behind a forced NAT (no way to disable it on the CPE) or LSN, the only way out is still tunneling. Talking about bandwidth and infrastructure waste... -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
In message dfe74319-378f-4134-b521-452328b17...@delong.com, Owen DeLong writes: It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires it however some do so planning to handle the exceptions as efficiently as possible is a good thing to do. I disagree. I look forward to a day when all home users by default have a public IPv6 address for each of their machines and hopefully enough to support multiple subnets within the home. need == something they currently do will break without it when LSN is deployed for IPv4 and there is not a suitable workaround. I'm all for customers getting public IPv6 addresses. Keeping IPv4 running until IPv6 is ubiquitous with minimal breakage is the challenge. Until then, IPv4 service without at least one public IP is degraded at best compared to what most people consider normal residential internet access today (which, frankly, is degraded at best compared to what I consider normal internet access). I've got two applications that won't work behind a LSN. A sip phone and a 6in4 tunnel however I'm not typical. You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The following very common applications are known to have problems with LSN: Playstation Network X-Box Live AIM/iChat/FaceTime SIP/Vonage/other VoIP services The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes Peer to Peer (torrent, etc.) Other less common applications also have problems: HTTP servers SMTP servers Back to my Mac VNC Tunnels So you take these things that are known to break as exceptions to being behind a LSN and when there is a workable alternative you remove it from the exception list with a desription of the work around. e.g. SMTP servers don't require a public IPv4 address. STARTTLS with authenticated TURN to a external MX will work. Similarly a external dual stack MX + IPv6 support will work. The ISP could supply that external MX. Looking at 6to4 and auto tunnels they really are a small percentage of customers that could be auto detected by the ISP and be put into the exception pool prior to enabling LSN. Most CPE routers today don't enable 6to4 (they either don't support IPv6 let alone 6to4 or its not turned on by default). As for directly connected machines many of then still require 6to4 to be turned on by hand (XP, Mac OS). While this is true, I'm not sure it's all that relevant. Most ISPs I have talked to in the US are dreading the deployment of LSN and not planning to deploy it by default except to the extent absolutely necessary to meet customer demand. What's easier for the ISP, detecting the customers that use protocol 41 today and automatically adding them to a exception pool or fielding the support calls? Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment required. Owen Mark Without any commitments to cite, plan for the worst and hope for the best. Cb If I were doing it I would also have checkboxes for some of the more common reasons and include IPv6 connectivity as one then have a 6 month grace period once the ISP offers IPv6 connectivity before removing that as a valid reason for needing a address that is not behind the LSN. LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core network of several ISPs, and most didn't yet consider it as optional. Nor are ready for v6 connectivity to residential customers, though. For users behind a forced NAT (no way to disable it on the CPE) or LSN, the only way out is still tunneling. Talking about bandwidth and infrastructure waste... -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol (Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day)
Owen DeLong wrote: FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond. It'd be a great way to get a point across. ;-) -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com said: You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The following very common applications are known to have problems with LSN: The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes I'm curious: how does this have any problem with any particular NAT implementation? The TiVo HTTPS server is only intended to be accessed from the local LAN, so what happens outside your house (e.g. LSN) shouldn't matter. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html Increased traffic from less-geeky people = more sane numbers overall. The problem with the graphs on that site is that the audience is self selecting; so only when some major site says go here! do we get a more random(ish) audience, versus people setting up tunnelbrokers and the like. I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everything I've seen so far says that *starts* nowish, and more laterish this year, in any impacting way. Really, we're just just before the start of getting end user adoption to start rising.
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:20 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message dfe74319-378f-4134-b521-452328b17...@delong.com, Owen DeLong writes: It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires it however some do so planning to handle the exceptions as efficiently as possible is a good thing to do. I disagree. I look forward to a day when all home users by default have a public IPv6 address for each of their machines and hopefully enough to support multiple subnets within the home. need == something they currently do will break without it when LSN is deployed for IPv4 and there is not a suitable workaround. We have different definitions of need. I would argue that someone needs their sight. I don't know of any blind people who, given the opportunity, would consider sight unnecessary. I don't know of any sighted people who would consider the loss of their sight an acceptable outcome given any choice in the matter. The fact that most of the internet is currently disabled (behind NAT) does not mean that they do not need complete internet access. The fact that most people do not realize they are disabled is an unfortunate consequence of the nature of their disability, not a status quo that we should seek to preserve. I'm all for customers getting public IPv6 addresses. Keeping IPv4 running until IPv6 is ubiquitous with minimal breakage is the challenge. Yep... And a challenge of questionable and dubious benefit and success as well. I would argue that it is better to put that amount of resources behind making IPv6 more ubiquitous rather than diverting them to hackery aimed at preserving the status quo. Until then, IPv4 service without at least one public IP is degraded at best compared to what most people consider normal residential internet access today (which, frankly, is degraded at best compared to what I consider normal internet access). I've got two applications that won't work behind a LSN. A sip phone and a 6in4 tunnel however I'm not typical. You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The following very common applications are known to have problems with LSN: Playstation Network X-Box Live AIM/iChat/FaceTime SIP/Vonage/other VoIP services The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes Peer to Peer (torrent, etc.) Other less common applications also have problems: HTTP servers SMTP servers Back to my Mac VNC Tunnels So you take these things that are known to break as exceptions to being behind a LSN and when there is a workable alternative you remove it from the exception list with a desription of the work around. My point is that I don't know very many US internet users that don't use at least one of the above on a regular basis, so, you've now said that everyone should get an exception until there is a workable alternative. Most of these things will likely never have workable alternatives without significant development efforts and it's questionable how effective said alternatives can be even then. e.g. SMTP servers don't require a public IPv4 address. STARTTLS with authenticated TURN to a external MX will work. Similarly a external dual stack MX + IPv6 support will work. The ISP could supply that external MX. That implies an unacceptable trust model for users that don't have their own external TURN host. If everyone has a TURN host, then, you have only increased the required number of public addresses. One reason I run my own SMTP server is because I don't want to trust my ISP with access to cleartext versions of all of my email. Owen
Re: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol (Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day)
On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond. It'd be a great way to get a point across. ;-) No, it really wouldn't. What it would be, instead, would be an event with little or no participation except people who are already very IPv6 aware and committed. The goal here is to help bring IPv6 awareness to a larger group and demonstrate that it can be deployed without significant damage to the existing infrastructure. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:55 AM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com said: You're not that atypical either, at least compared to US users. The following very common applications are known to have problems with LSN: The HTTPs Server on TiVO boxes I'm curious: how does this have any problem with any particular NAT implementation? The TiVo HTTPS server is only intended to be accessed from the local LAN, so what happens outside your house (e.g. LSN) shouldn't matter. I disagree. It is allowed to be accessed anywhere from within your household. A household is defined as the members who live there regardless of where in the world they are at any particular time. Since I spend a great deal of time traveling, I routinely download shows from my TiVO over the internet using the https server on the TiVO box. Fortunately, my TiVO boxes have public IPv4 addresses and this is not an issue. I have confirmed with legal counsel and with TiVO that my interpretation of the term household is valid within the meaning of their license agreement. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:30, Jason Fesler wrote: I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everything I've seen so far says that *starts* nowish, and more laterish this year, in any impacting way. Really, we're just just before the start of getting end user adoption to start rising. For our web presence, which has been dual-stack since 2004, we saw external IPv6 traffic rise 0.1% per year to 2010, when it 'leapt' to 1.0% and in 2011 so far the highest we've seen over any month is 1.8%, so it doubled in 2010 and is set to more than double in 2011. OK, so 2% is still small, but from tiny acorns... SMTP is still well under 1% though. Tim
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org: There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind the LSN. Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for free. LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core network of several ISPs, and most didn't yet consider it as optional. Nor are ready for v6 connectivity to residential customers, though. For users behind a forced NAT (no way to disable it on the CPE) or LSN, the only way out is still tunneling. Talking about bandwidth and infrastructure waste... -- Jérôme Nicolle
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8=0...@mail.gmail.com , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes: 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org: There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind the LSN. Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for fre= e. Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN. As for in time it should be in place before they turn on LSN. If you can adjust port 25 filters whenever a customer gets a new address you can also ensure that they get address from the correct pool when they connect to the network. This really isn't rocket science. It's updating the provisioning database from a web form and generating new configs based on that database. Yes there is some work required to ensure that this gets done properly and there needs to be checks that address pools are appropriately sized. If I were doing it I would also have checkboxes for some of the more common reasons and include IPv6 connectivity as one then have a 6 month grace period once the ISP offers IPv6 connectivity before removing that as a valid reason for needing a address that is not behind the LSN. LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core network of several ISPs, and most didn't yet consider it as optional. Nor are ready for v6 connectivity to residential customers, though. For users behind a forced NAT (no way to disable it on the CPE) or LSN, the only way out is still tunneling. Talking about bandwidth and infrastructure waste... -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8= 0...@mail.gmail.com , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes: 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org: There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind the LSN. Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for fre= e. Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN. As for in time it should be in place before they turn on LSN. If you can adjust port 25 filters whenever a customer gets a new address you can also ensure that they get address from the correct pool when they connect to the network. This really isn't rocket science. It's updating the provisioning database from a web form and generating new configs based on that database. Yes there is some work required to ensure that this gets done properly and there needs to be checks that address pools are appropriately sized. Can you cite an example of an isp doing this? My assumption is that people will get LSN by default for standard residential broad band and business class will get public ip's. Without any commitments to cite, plan for the worst and hope for the best. Cb If I were doing it I would also have checkboxes for some of the more common reasons and include IPv6 connectivity as one then have a 6 month grace period once the ISP offers IPv6 connectivity before removing that as a valid reason for needing a address that is not behind the LSN. LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core network of several ISPs, and most didn't yet consider it as optional. Nor are ready for v6 connectivity to residential customers, though. For users behind a forced NAT (no way to disable it on the CPE) or LSN, the only way out is still tunneling. Talking about bandwidth and infrastructure waste... -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org: Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN. On France, our bigger ISP charges extra for a fixed IP. Its network beeing rather old-fashioned, every DSL (and residential fiber) line is terminated on a LNS through a PPP session. Assigning a fixed IP is technically done by adding a RADIUS parameter to force the termination LNS to those having a static pool. The same method could be applied to get a user out of the LSN, but as their LSN isn't yet in place, we have no clue of what they'll do. We just know their CEO just announced ongoing discussions with CDNs (including google) about service differenciation and charging users for priority bandwidth. If you can adjust port 25 filters whenever a customer gets a new address you can also ensure that they get address from the correct pool when they connect to the network. This really isn't rocket science. Well, you can't open port25 on Orange's ADSL service ;) -- Jérôme Nicolle
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
In message banlktiniakw+gppcmjfs8qfbdrm7qek...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne writes: On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8= 0...@mail.gmail.com , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes: 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org: There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind the LSN. Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for fre= e. Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN. As for in time it should be in place before they turn on LSN. If you can adjust port 25 filters whenever a customer gets a new address you can also ensure that they get address from the correct pool when they connect to the network. This really isn't rocket science. It's updating the provisioning database from a web form and generating new configs based on that database. Yes there is some work required to ensure that this gets done properly and there needs to be checks that address pools are appropriately sized. Can you cite an example of an isp doing this? My assumption is that people will get LSN by default for standard residential broad band and business class will get public ip's. It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires it however some do so planning to handle the exceptions as efficiently as possible is a good thing to do. I've got two applications that won't work behind a LSN. A sip phone and a 6in4 tunnel however I'm not typical. Looking at 6to4 and auto tunnels they really are a small percentage of customers that could be auto detected by the ISP and be put into the exception pool prior to enabling LSN. Most CPE routers today don't enable 6to4 (they either don't support IPv6 let alone 6to4 or its not turned on by default). As for directly connected machines many of then still require 6to4 to be turned on by hand (XP, Mac OS). What's easier for the ISP, detecting the customers that use protocol 41 today and automatically adding them to a exception pool or fielding the support calls? Mark Without any commitments to cite, plan for the worst and hope for the best. Cb If I were doing it I would also have checkboxes for some of the more common reasons and include IPv6 connectivity as one then have a 6 month grace period once the ISP offers IPv6 connectivity before removing that as a valid reason for needing a address that is not behind the LSN. LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core network of several ISPs, and most didn't yet consider it as optional. Nor are ready for v6 connectivity to residential customers, though. For users behind a forced NAT (no way to disable it on the CPE) or LSN, the only way out is still tunneling. Talking about bandwidth and infrastructure waste... -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 5, 2011 7:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message banlktiniakw+gppcmjfs8qfbdrm7qek...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne writes: On Jun 5, 2011 6:15 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message BANLkTimGkuL7ycrYG6kTC1U7OWis9dOA+YaV-YHwr+5C8= 0...@mail.gmail.com , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes: 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org: There is no reason that they can't do a similar thing to move customers who are doing things that break with LSN out from behind the LSN. Oh, you're right, they'll surelly do that. But not in time, and not for fre= e. Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN. As for in time it should be in place before they turn on LSN. If you can adjust port 25 filters whenever a customer gets a new address you can also ensure that they get address from the correct pool when they connect to the network. This really isn't rocket science. It's updating the provisioning database from a web form and generating new configs based on that database. Yes there is some work required to ensure that this gets done properly and there needs to be checks that address pools are appropriately sized. Can you cite an example of an isp doing this? My assumption is that people will get LSN by default for standard residential broad band and business class will get public ip's. It's how you handle the exceptions. Home users have port 25 off by default but can still get it turned on. Most home users don't need a public IP address as they are not running stuff that requires it however some do so planning to handle the exceptions as efficiently as possible is a good thing to do. I've got two applications that won't work behind a LSN. A sip phone and a 6in4 tunnel however I'm not typical. Looking at 6to4 and auto tunnels they really are a small percentage of customers that could be auto detected by the ISP and be put into the exception pool prior to enabling LSN. Most CPE routers today don't enable 6to4 (they either don't support IPv6 let alone 6to4 or its not turned on by default). As for directly connected machines many of then still require 6to4 to be turned on by hand (XP, Mac OS). What's easier for the ISP, detecting the customers that use protocol 41 today and automatically adding them to a exception pool or fielding the support calls? I understand your scenario and logic clearly. I assume you understood my question about an example isp that also follows your logic... so we are left to assume that none exists. If ISPs were going to follow your plan they would not be cooking up 6to4-pmt and charging extra for static ip's today. Cb Mark Without any commitments to cite, plan for the worst and hope for the best. Cb If I were doing it I would also have checkboxes for some of the more common reasons and include IPv6 connectivity as one then have a 6 month grace period once the ISP offers IPv6 connectivity before removing that as a valid reason for needing a address that is not behind the LSN. LSN is beeing actively implemented in the core network of several ISPs, and most didn't yet consider it as optional. Nor are ready for v6 connectivity to residential customers, though. For users behind a forced NAT (no way to disable it on the CPE) or LSN, the only way out is still tunneling. Talking about bandwidth and infrastructure waste... -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
In message BANLkTik+qgTPXOwaSsHseYQbP0MBJw25Tb2bO6b3kyrKvhGj=q...@mail.gmail.com, = ?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= writes: 2011/6/6 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org: Well here in Australia I would be calling the ACCC is a ISP tried to charge extra for a address that is not behind a LSN. On France, our bigger ISP charges extra for a fixed IP. Its network beeing rather old-fashioned, every DSL (and residential fiber) line is terminated on a LNS through a PPP session. Assigning a fixed IP is technically done by adding a RADIUS parameter to force the termination LNS to those having a static pool. The same method could be applied to get a user out of the LSN, but as their LSN isn't yet in place, we have no clue of what they'll do. We just know their CEO just announced ongoing discussions with CDNs (including google) about service differenciation and charging users for priority bandwidth. Which just reinforces the point that it is not technically hard. Remember when you introduce LSN you are degrading the service not adding to it. I can seen consumer bodies saying thay you need to compensate your customers unless there is a free path to get into the exception pool. =C2=A0If you can adjust port 25 filters whenever a customer gets a new address you can also ensure that they get address from the correct pool when they connect to the network. =C2=A0This really isn't rocket science. Well, you can't open port25 on Orange's ADSL service ;) --=20 J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Nicolle -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 3, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said: There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-) Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different traffic pattern for home/office, but then you'd expect Friday to be about the same as M-Th, and Sat/Sun to be about even. Everyone is out interacting with Humans on Friday nights. Sunday, everyone is home trying to avoid dealing with their families. Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall policy for that particular phenomena. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-22.pdf (Mostly tongue in cheek) Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall policy for that particular phenomena. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-22.pdf Indeed... Unfortunately, this means that LSN is going to _REALLY_ suck for such tunnel users. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall policy for that particular phenomena. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-22.pdf Indeed... Unfortunately, this means that LSN is going to _REALLY_ suck for such tunnel users. The smart money is on there being no-saving the auto-tunneling users. The situation is not that good now and it will get worse. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom. Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4. That's the path I chose. I guess you're all missing the point here. I've never agreed too much with M$, but what they're doing is right. IPv6 stacks are quite mature these days but IPv6 connectivity can be broken due to incorrectly implemented networks / tunnels (see: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/223-World_IPv6_day.pdf). For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6. Hopefully the service providers network admins get to identify and fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$ bashing, but not for this reason. -Jaidev Owen On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJN6A4VAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H7uoQAMrSuAXqXo+L+Wkiqx+OvwU8 v4TJEeTU8Hp+ap0Kuka0Jq2HFC2ReABwfwZEX9wywdcXKFYu1u8znVa6neX6rjcv uxghsoqZEp9A4KB/J2q/ulM6B8/40oRHK1IuHdv0fZwC0oLyJ1W10n1VzsiE3qxx JOWbn1SIPo4nXnTIVU60yDOySlsclpW3fuqQoUIHzwEZEFgYf2l7ywcPfuCvVQJw FuqASIk0c9hQJVnBKTpaIQaNdRExkYtQSs5i8+TyzxhyGx1XGDOeJoRHRBQhSfcS DS8Vuwvblh+UjGFDIEF9Oen7NxrK2xjBCJIDV+MbJwAJdjs5wM3H9nFdhCX9Z2cl TRIj4/qQcS7m8cl4gNFY3nplALrWHjs2WK8jk0HlDnEgvSe7D2YC6Te5vnGgY9sX JXif1D36Pzx1V1JwbmMIwvvlUalPH/jyciMVUGrMMKc+0w7/75IerzGsSabdTIzJ t0/4jh5/h8db+q37CfN1Xj/gWkBcIyXmGGCd3pny4+YJwI5hnspWoeRq5lkB64Pn zDCJANGd5PZxtcTBgYJkZCK+sNjzycThkS1UP8pKdajbyQNlbRWkDFbQwMQ0DQEa IanX3BioesZmfashzRu+khdczhLVtFLKLUT7/yI2RqQOekx5sO+HqzTIiIIp5mkd KbOBvdIvnaz5FI94I8jk =OyB3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom. Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4. That's the path I chose. I guess you're all missing the point here. I've never agreed too much with M$, but what they're doing is right. IPv6 stacks are quite mature these days but IPv6 connectivity can be broken due to incorrectly implemented networks / tunnels (see: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/223-World_IPv6_day.pdf). I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past the problem. For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6. No, there is the option of troubleshooting why IPv6 doesn't work for them and working to correct it. Hopefully the service providers network admins get to identify and fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$ bashing, but not for this reason. I didn't see where in the M$ propaganda it suggested calling your ISP or network admin to have them help you fix the issue, so, I don't see how what they are proposing has any hope of enabling this. Owen -Jaidev Owen On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJN6A4VAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H7uoQAMrSuAXqXo+L+Wkiqx+OvwU8 v4TJEeTU8Hp+ap0Kuka0Jq2HFC2ReABwfwZEX9wywdcXKFYu1u8znVa6neX6rjcv uxghsoqZEp9A4KB/J2q/ulM6B8/40oRHK1IuHdv0fZwC0oLyJ1W10n1VzsiE3qxx JOWbn1SIPo4nXnTIVU60yDOySlsclpW3fuqQoUIHzwEZEFgYf2l7ywcPfuCvVQJw FuqASIk0c9hQJVnBKTpaIQaNdRExkYtQSs5i8+TyzxhyGx1XGDOeJoRHRBQhSfcS DS8Vuwvblh+UjGFDIEF9Oen7NxrK2xjBCJIDV+MbJwAJdjs5wM3H9nFdhCX9Z2cl TRIj4/qQcS7m8cl4gNFY3nplALrWHjs2WK8jk0HlDnEgvSe7D2YC6Te5vnGgY9sX JXif1D36Pzx1V1JwbmMIwvvlUalPH/jyciMVUGrMMKc+0w7/75IerzGsSabdTIzJ t0/4jh5/h8db+q37CfN1Xj/gWkBcIyXmGGCd3pny4+YJwI5hnspWoeRq5lkB64Pn zDCJANGd5PZxtcTBgYJkZCK+sNjzycThkS1UP8pKdajbyQNlbRWkDFbQwMQ0DQEa IanX3BioesZmfashzRu+khdczhLVtFLKLUT7/yI2RqQOekx5sO+HqzTIiIIp5mkd KbOBvdIvnaz5FI94I8jk =OyB3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:18 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past the problem. and your solution is what? -Dan As I said before, provide pointers to resources where users can follow up on actually resolving the issues. Their ISP, their IT department, web pages with additional information on how to diagnose the problem, etc. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 3 Jun 2011, at 10:13, Owen DeLong wrote: As I said before, provide pointers to resources where users can follow up on actually resolving the issues. Their ISP, their IT department, web pages with additional information on how to diagnose the problem, etc. I would guess a typical user will call their local helpdesk or ISP first if they have problems. They won't have a clue that Google or Facebook are down or slow due to IPv6 connectivity issues. In which case MS providing a syskb entry for those support people to point the user at seems pretty reasonable. One major MS site has gone dual-stack this morning btw :) Tim
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 3 Jun 2011, at 01:08, andrew.wallace wrote: World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign. The day passing without any significant userland issues would make it a success. It's a good opportunity to ensure you have the right measurement tools in place so you can learn something from the day. For sites that have dual-stack deployed, a one-day peek into the future where perhaps 15% or more of external traffic will be IPv6 is pretty useful, given it's currently 1% or less. Tim
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:18:08AM -0700, goe...@anime.net wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past the problem. and your solution is what? Being a techie, I do want some people to have broken networks that day so they can *fix* it. Very few things are going to break in a new way that there isn't a known fix for. I do expect that this while thing will be a giant noop. Some people with old software/firmware or broken hardware may see something, but without proper maintence I would expect that with anything. Cars, Planes and Trains included. - 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: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. How fun is that? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -- //fredan
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote: The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. You made the mistake of buying something that wasn't compliant with the following draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-required-02 How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. Replacing CPE will come naturally with entropy over time combined with the early-adopters. I know many people who would walk into the store today and buy a docsis 3 cable modem if cox/charter/twcable etc had ipv6 available. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. This is a whole other issue but getting better. I do want to see what Qwest (Centurylink?) plans on the consumer side as well as any form of an upgrade to the 2WIRE devices that ATT is using. Looking at the other providers out there, it's interesting to watch the table growing daily. Somewhere around 10-20 new ASNs appear in the IPv6 table right now. (Weekends tend to show few if any adds). 2WIRE rant: These have a whole host of issues that seem to constantly cause problems. (I do like that if you send a SIP notify to devices behind them they sometimes reboot themselves and solve the problem due to their broken SIP-ALG that can't be disabled). How fun is that? The usual fun. We have had discussions with vendors about IPv6 support and capabilities and they are really interesting. Just ask about v6 lawful-intercept for compliance next time. Interesting days ahead, but all Is the bright future. The network is real now, even if you don't like the smell or color of IPv6. - Jared
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote: The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? irrelevant, nothing is going to break for you on june 8th. At some point you'll buy a new modem, maybe not soon. I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. How fun is that? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -- //fredan
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:01 EDT, Jared Mauch said: On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote: The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. You made the mistake of buying something that wasn't compliant with the following draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-required-02 s/mistake/decision/. There, fixed that for you. I went out 3 years ago and bought a cablemodem and a router that are *also* not IPv6 ready, because it made economic sense at the time (Got them on sale, they had every *other* feature I needed, they were easier/cheaper to find at Best Buy than IPv6-ready gear, Comcast has yet to deploy IPv6 in my area, and they were cheap enough I don't mind forklift-upgrading them when IPv6 becomes actually available here.). They'll probably get replaced within 48 hours of it being *worth* replacing them. But at the time, paying literally twice as much for a box that had a feature I was not likely to be able to use before the box needed replacing *anyhow* didn't make any economic sense. pgpAovrWVNDvm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Do they have any good reason to block proto 41? Generic Homeusers never asked for IPv4 so they won't ask for IPv6. The time will change many things from CPE to perspective as well. I'm not ready to answer million calls on World IPv6 only week :) Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alexander Maassen outsi...@scarynet.orgwrote: You are missing a big point here, most NL users for example cannot use ipv6 tunnels because the isp's equipment doesn't allow them. When I called my ISP (online.nl) for example to ask about it, they first had something like: what the heck are you talking about. In fact, one of the only major isp's in the netherlands actively supporting ipv6 for customers is xs4all. On several other providers I had I am simply unable to setup a tunnel. The provider itself is the one blocking proto 41. Not me or my router, and surely not he.net. Another issue is, as long as not many homeusers are aware of ipv6 (for them it's just technical mumbo jumbo they don't care about, as long as they get the webpages shown they wanna access it's fine for them). So having said previous, maybe there should be a World IPv6 only week. That would piss off users, make them complain at their isp, and maybe THEN they finally wanna do some implementations. Op 3-6-2011 9:44, Owen DeLong schreef: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom. Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4. That's the path I chose. I guess you're all missing the point here. I've never agreed too much with M$, but what they're doing is right. IPv6 stacks are quite mature these days but IPv6 connectivity can be broken due to incorrectly implemented networks / tunnels (see: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/223-World_IPv6_day.pdf). I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past the problem. For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6. No, there is the option of troubleshooting why IPv6 doesn't work for them and working to correct it. Hopefully the service providers network admins get to identify and fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$ bashing, but not for this reason. I didn't see where in the M$ propaganda it suggested calling your ISP or network admin to have them help you fix the issue, so, I don't see how what they are proposing has any hope of enabling this. Owen -Jaidev Owen On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -- The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
Re: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol (Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day)
On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: IPv6 only was the original plan of World IPv6 Day It was? No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at ietf where they turn off ipv4 for an hour on the conference wifi. Ipv6 day was never about turning v4 off No confusion there, there was an earlier plan to do an IPv6-only stint, but that was withdrawn as it would have caused too much amok in the world. Greets, Jeroen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote: The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. OK... How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? You don't. However, that's not the issue. All you need to do is make sure that your Micr0$0ft boxes don't think they have working IPv6 behind your ZyXEL and you're fine for now. Of course, if your home gateway vendor has decided that they will absolutely not support IPv6, then, it's time to get a new home gateway. I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. True, but, it may not have the flash or RAM to handle the job. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. I would let them know that they are overdue for developing this skill set and better get cracking if I were their customer. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. I think part of the point of W6D is to identify these and raise awareness among the users of such devices that a vital upgrade is in their near future. By just hotwiring past the IPv6 issues, Micr0$0ft is removing this opportunity. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. That's what solutions like 6rd and 6in4 are intended for. How fun is that? There are many things that are fun in this industry. The next couple of years are definitely going to be interesting. Owen http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -- //fredan
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
As Owen is suggesting, if would have been helpful if Microsoft's Network troubleshooting wizard in Windows Vista and 7 had an inkling about IPv6 and would check IPv6 connectivity in the same way it checks IPv6 connectivity, and work through things link 6to4 issues. Frank -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:44 AM To: m...@jaidev.info Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jaidev Sridhar wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom. Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4. That's the path I chose. I guess you're all missing the point here. I've never agreed too much with M$, but what they're doing is right. IPv6 stacks are quite mature these days but IPv6 connectivity can be broken due to incorrectly implemented networks / tunnels (see: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/223-World_IPv6_day.pdf). I'm not missing the point, just suggesting that it would be better if Micr0$0ft were part of the solution instead of just hotwiring past the problem. For those clients there is no option other than disabling IPv6. No, there is the option of troubleshooting why IPv6 doesn't work for them and working to correct it. Hopefully the service providers network admins get to identify and fix issues. This problem is not client OS specific. I'm all for M$ bashing, but not for this reason. I didn't see where in the M$ propaganda it suggested calling your ISP or network admin to have them help you fix the issue, so, I don't see how what they are proposing has any hope of enabling this. Owen -Jaidev Owen On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJN6A4VAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H7uoQAMrSuAXqXo+L+Wkiqx+OvwU8 v4TJEeTU8Hp+ap0Kuka0Jq2HFC2ReABwfwZEX9wywdcXKFYu1u8znVa6neX6rjcv uxghsoqZEp9A4KB/J2q/ulM6B8/40oRHK1IuHdv0fZwC0oLyJ1W10n1VzsiE3qxx JOWbn1SIPo4nXnTIVU60yDOySlsclpW3fuqQoUIHzwEZEFgYf2l7ywcPfuCvVQJw FuqASIk0c9hQJVnBKTpaIQaNdRExkYtQSs5i8+TyzxhyGx1XGDOeJoRHRBQhSfcS DS8Vuwvblh+UjGFDIEF9Oen7NxrK2xjBCJIDV+MbJwAJdjs5wM3H9nFdhCX9Z2cl TRIj4/qQcS7m8cl4gNFY3nplALrWHjs2WK8jk0HlDnEgvSe7D2YC6Te5vnGgY9sX JXif1D36Pzx1V1JwbmMIwvvlUalPH/jyciMVUGrMMKc+0w7/75IerzGsSabdTIzJ t0/4jh5/h8db+q37CfN1Xj/gWkBcIyXmGGCd3pny4+YJwI5hnspWoeRq5lkB64Pn zDCJANGd5PZxtcTBgYJkZCK+sNjzycThkS1UP8pKdajbyQNlbRWkDFbQwMQ0DQEa IanX3BioesZmfashzRu+khdczhLVtFLKLUT7/yI2RqQOekx5sO+HqzTIiIIp5mkd KbOBvdIvnaz5FI94I8jk =OyB3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Have a ZyXEL VSG1432 right behind me where the IPv6 works pretty good (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE#DSL). All the DSL modem vendors could stand improving their GUI. Frank -Original Message- From: fredrik danerklint [mailto:fredan-na...@fredan.se] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:27 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. How do I as a customer do to have a working IPv6 setup on this modem since ZyXEL, basicilly, has decide that it will not support IPv6 at all? I mean, you can not say it does not have the the cpu power for handling IPv6 when it can also act as a fileserver and a printserver for example. What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. Think about all the CPE that will not be upgraded, since those that makes them don't care at all, even tough it probably has the cpu power to handle IPv6. And I haven't even started at the network equiment that exists between me as a ISP and my customer (this equiment is out of my control), that can't handle IPv6 even if my customer got an working CPE with IPv6. How fun is that? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -- //fredan
Re: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol (Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day)
On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: IPv6 only was the original plan of World IPv6 Day It was? No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens at ietf where they turn off ipv4 for an hour on the conference wifi. Ipv6 day was never about turning v4 off No confusion there, there was an earlier plan to do an IPv6-only stint, but that was withdrawn as it would have caused too much amok in the world. Greets, Jeroen FIrst I've heard of such a thing. The original organizers of W6D have zero motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even consider it for more than a picosecond. Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/ Something is happening... On 6/2/11 21:34 , Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing.
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:31:57 -, Franck Martin said: http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/ Something is happening... What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it. pgpBoLaAKeQfI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it. - There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-) scott
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said: There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-) Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different traffic pattern for home/office, but then you'd expect Friday to be about the same as M-Th, and Sat/Sun to be about even. pgpnIHUMxcZwV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 6/2/2011 7:08 PM, andrew.wallace wrote: Worldanything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign. Andrew I've had more customers ask and now willing to participate than ever before. Any better suggestions? Or, maybe take your pissing mechanism and try a subject more worthy. tv
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 3 June 2011 23:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said: There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-) Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different traffic pattern for home/office, but then you'd expect Friday to be about the same as M-Th, and Sat/Sun to be about even. I wonder if there is a disproportionately large amount of IPv6 usage in the Middle East where a number of countries have their weekend on Friday and Saturday, with Sunday being the first day of their working week? UAE and Israel as examples. Tony
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 12:04:42AM +0100, Tony McCrory wrote: I wonder if there is a disproportionately large amount of IPv6 usage in the Middle East where a number of countries have their weekend on Friday and Saturday, with Sunday being the first day of their working week? UAE and Israel as examples. Interestingly, providing access services to students in the UK, I see Friday and Saturday as my quiet days, with Sunday being as busy as Monday - Thursday. I always just put it down to students going out drinking on Fridays and Saturdays. Simon
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said: There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-) Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different traffic pattern for home/office, but then you'd expect Friday to be about the same as M-Th, and Sat/Sun to be about even. Everyone is out interacting with Humans on Friday nights. Sunday, everyone is home trying to avoid dealing with their families. (Mostly tongue in cheek) Owen
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Jun 3 17:25:39 2011 To: sur...@mauigateway.com Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:24:42 -0400 Cc: nanog@nanog.org --==_Exmh_1307139882_2680P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said: There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-) Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6 loads on Sunday and lower loads on Friday? I'd buy a different traffic pattern for home/office, but then you'd expect Friday to be about the same as M-Th, and Sat/Sun to be about even. Possibly traffic from the 'wrong side' of the International Date line??
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: What's special about Sunday peaks and Friday lows on that graph? I think I asked that once before, with no firm conclusions. But there's a definite sawtooth there, big enough that we probably want to understand it. It means that IPv6 geeks have lives too :) -- Antonio Querubin e-mail: t...@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioqueru...@gmail.com
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:13:31 -0700 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day To: fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se Cc: nanog@nanog.org On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote: The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case. For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup) in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it. (...) What they (ZyXEL) are saying to me (for not haveing IPv6 at this moment) is that they don't have the skills to implement IPv6 in their current products. I would let them know that they are overdue for developing this skill set and better get cracking if I were their customer. well, directly from their (ZyXEL) US homepage you will be directed to: http://us.zyxel.com/info/ipv6/ with at least some information. #m
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 06/02/2011 12:45 PM, david raistrick wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Bill Woodcock wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... snicker. snicker. lol. rofl. we'll fix our ipv6 support by, well, not using it! It's not Microsoft's IPv6 support they're fixing, which works fine from my experience with it, they're making sure you can access sites if your ISP or Router's IPv6 handling is screwed up. Paul
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH), it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the (as they themselves claim) 0.1% of users who may encounter issues next Wednesday: http://blogs.technet.com/b/ipv6/archive/2011/02/11/ipv6-day.aspx Fun as it might be to take it out of context, at least they're not telling people to disable IPv6 entirely (like some organizations still are). Jima
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ This article describes step-by-step instructions for mitigating issues you may have connecting to the Internet, or certain websites, on World IPv6 Day (June 8, 2011). The following Fix it solution will _resolve_ the issue by configuring your computer to prefer IPv4, instead of IPv6. [Insert Nelson Muntz laugh here] -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign. Andrew
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 2011-06-02 19:08, andrew.wallace wrote: Worldanything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign. No kidding. We wouldn't want to raise public awareness of IPv6 or anything. That might take it out of the realm of geeky plaything. :-( Jima
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, andrew.wallace said: World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign. Got a better idea? Some of us have been running IPv6 since 1998 and this is still the closest thing to getting people motivated to switch we've seen this century. And I doubt it will be a *total* failure - even if a lot of things unexpectedly break, the post-mortems will of value. In fact, the cynic in me says the post-mortems are what's really driving this whole event. ;) pgp0zAGP7Egua.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
In message 4de81ada.3010...@jima.tk, Jima writes: On 2011-06-02 17:26, Bill Woodcock wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... While I'm far from a Microsoft apologist (not really even a fan, TBH), it's worth pointing out that they're not pushing this out via Windows Update or anything. It's intended only as a remedy for the (as they themselves claim) 0.1% of users who may encounter issues next Wednesday: http://blogs.technet.com/b/ipv6/archive/2011/02/11/ipv6-day.aspx Fun as it might be to take it out of context, at least they're not telling people to disable IPv6 entirely (like some organizations still are). Jima They need to fix the typo. You vs Your. :-) Mark Your ready for World IPv6 Day, and have nothing to worry about. You also are lucky enough to have IPv6 connectivity along with IPv4 - meaning you have two ways to connect to the Internet! -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:08:29 PDT, andrew.wallace said: World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign. Got a better idea? Some of us have been running IPv6 since 1998 and this is still the closest thing to getting people motivated to switch we've seen this century. And I doubt it will be a *total* failure - even if a lot of things unexpectedly break, the post-mortems will of value. In fact, the cynic in me says the post-mortems are what's really driving this whole event. ;) +1 IPv6 day is already a huge success since it has brought technology competitors like Facebook, Bing, Google, Yahoo, Akamai, Limelight and many others all together to help move this VERY IMPORTANT rock up the hill. The ideal state of IPv6 day is that the Internet keeps working with no news from a network operator perspective ... aside from a very slight bump in IPv6 traffic (we still have edge IPv6 reach issues in the Internet (understatement)... but there is progress there too (true statement)). If you have not been to the website, you should go and have a look. This list should have a high level of interest in the success and IPv6 day since most of us get pay checks based on the continued growth and success of this here network of networks. http://www.worldipv6day.org/ And, in case you have not seen a hockey stick lately http://v6asns.ripe.net/v/6 Cameron
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
It provides a handy space to comment at the bottom. Perhaps people here would like to let M$ know that it would be preferable to provide pointers to real workable IPv6 connectivity solutions rather than merely hotwire the system to temporarily bypass IPv6 in favor of IPv4. That's the path I chose. Owen On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/ Uh... -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJN6A4VAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H7uoQAMrSuAXqXo+L+Wkiqx+OvwU8 v4TJEeTU8Hp+ap0Kuka0Jq2HFC2ReABwfwZEX9wywdcXKFYu1u8znVa6neX6rjcv uxghsoqZEp9A4KB/J2q/ulM6B8/40oRHK1IuHdv0fZwC0oLyJ1W10n1VzsiE3qxx JOWbn1SIPo4nXnTIVU60yDOySlsclpW3fuqQoUIHzwEZEFgYf2l7ywcPfuCvVQJw FuqASIk0c9hQJVnBKTpaIQaNdRExkYtQSs5i8+TyzxhyGx1XGDOeJoRHRBQhSfcS DS8Vuwvblh+UjGFDIEF9Oen7NxrK2xjBCJIDV+MbJwAJdjs5wM3H9nFdhCX9Z2cl TRIj4/qQcS7m8cl4gNFY3nplALrWHjs2WK8jk0HlDnEgvSe7D2YC6Te5vnGgY9sX JXif1D36Pzx1V1JwbmMIwvvlUalPH/jyciMVUGrMMKc+0w7/75IerzGsSabdTIzJ t0/4jh5/h8db+q37CfN1Xj/gWkBcIyXmGGCd3pny4+YJwI5hnspWoeRq5lkB64Pn zDCJANGd5PZxtcTBgYJkZCK+sNjzycThkS1UP8pKdajbyQNlbRWkDFbQwMQ0DQEa IanX3BioesZmfashzRu+khdczhLVtFLKLUT7/yI2RqQOekx5sO+HqzTIiIIp5mkd KbOBvdIvnaz5FI94I8jk =OyB3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. -Hank IPv6 day is already a huge success since it has brought technology competitors like Facebook, Bing, Google, Yahoo, Akamai, Limelight and many others all together to help move this VERY IMPORTANT rock up the hill.
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On 06/02/2011 21:34, Hank Nussbacher wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. I think the graph is becoming more reflective of the real world as the test site gets more exposure. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test. These people who run the test, likely know what IPv6 is and therefore are more likely to have IPv6 enabled. As world ipv6 day gets more general press coverage, the graph is bending more towards a more realistic sample of the internet ... which does not usually have IPv6 access. Assuming Google users represent the general internet, this is the graph that displays what you are likely looking for http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/ Cameron
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test. These people who run the test, likely know what IPv6 is and therefore are more likely to have IPv6 enabled. As world ipv6 day gets more general press coverage, the graph is bending more towards a more realistic sample of the internet ... which does not usually have IPv6 access. Assuming Google users represent the general internet, this is the graph that displays what you are likely looking for http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/ This data is probably a better reference regarding ipv6 traffic growth http://www.ams-ix.net/sflow-stats/ipv6/ cb
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
In message BANLkTi=l1pdmxdcmqs+z656yjnsdnud...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne writes: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote: In that case can anyone explain why the number of IPv4 *only* systems is increasing rather than decreasing: http://server8.test-ipv6.com/stats.html I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that IPv4 only usage is increasing. Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test. These people who run the test, likely know what IPv6 is and therefore are more likely to have IPv6 enabled. As world ipv6 day gets more general press coverage, the graph is bending more towards a more realistic sample of the internet ... which does not usually have IPv6 access. Assuming Google users represent the general internet, this is the graph that displays what you are likely looking for http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/ Cameron Which is good as it is showing 6to4 fixes being deployed to preference IPv4 over 6to4 and a strong growth in IPv6 native. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 21:42, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Pure speculation here, but these stats that you refer to are not a scientifically representative sample of the internet at large, this sample is a self selecting group of people who have chosen to run an ipv6 test. Commonly called sample bias. Good statistical analysis will address (and adjust for) such bias, but that can be (very) hard work. As with all the CNN polls, there should be a disclaimer on such sites that say this is not a scientific poll, but that would ruin the fun. Gary
