Subject: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:25:55 -0400

I notice repeated emphasis on rolling-out IPv6 at the last few IETFs,
even to the point of being the theme of this IETF's T-shirts.  This
seems like a good thing.

But it contrasts strangely with the article pointed to by the e-mail to
this list, "IPv6 meeting is on Slashdot", whose title is "No Business
Case For IPv6, Survey Finds".

If the primary impediment to IPv6 deployment is that the ISPs feel no
business need to do so, the first item on the agenda should be
determining how to change that.  And all the nice words about how
wonderful IPv6 is are not particularly relevant.

Dale

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:17:33 -0700

I'd encourage everyone to read the survey being referred to in that 
article and decide for themselves whether the NetworkWorld headline is 
an accurate reflection of the content of the report.

http://www.isoc.org/pubs/2009-IPv6-OrgMember-Report.pdf

Mat

Dale Worley wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> 74attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/74attendees

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:48:44 -0400

> http://www.isoc.org/pubs/2009-IPv6-OrgMember-Report.pdf

I don't see anything in that report about the number of respondents who
are communicating with the outside world using IPv6.  Oddly, that
question is asked in the questionnaire (see question 4 at
http://www.isoc.org/pubs/Survey-OrgMemberIPv6-2008.pdf), but the
percentages of the responses to that question are not given in the
Report.

I also see in the Report this statement:  "A related question about
specific business drivers gave us two very clear kinds of repsponses:
that while there were *no* concrete business drivers for IPv6, the
technology was being driven by a general perception about customer
demand and a need to be prepared for the next large technlogy step in
the evolution of the Internet."

People here tell me that there is *no* large-scale ISP that offers IPv6
service.  If they're right, then my T-shirt for the "IPv6 Transition
World Tour" is just hype, the transition has yet to begin.

Dale

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:56:07 +1200 (ANAT)

he.net ?

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:01:20 -0700

On 23-Mar-2009, at 18:48, Dale Worley wrote:

> service.

NTT, HE, Mzima, Tiscali, Easynet, Teleglobe, Global Crossing, FLAG,  
nLayer, ...? No doubt I could find more if I looked and wasn't just  
typing based on people I've talked or connected to in the past six  
months.

You should tell those people there who are saying those things that  
they might want to click refresh on their view of the world. Their  
facts are a little stale.

Joe

---

From: Nathan Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:04:49 -0700

> World Tour" is just hype, the transition has yet to begin.

I have given a talk multiple times in more operational forums entitled  
"Welcome to your IPv6 enabled transit network, whether you like it or  
not". The transition for end users is quite far along already, and  
most of them don't know it. This is bypassing lack of ISP deployments  
using 6to4 and Teredo - hence "whether you like it or not".

RE: he.net, they are not an access network.
Free.fr is a much better example - they have a huge number of end  
users on IPv6 (delivered using a technology called 6rd), and most of  
them don't know it.

--
Nathan Ward

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:18:48 -0400

> percentages of the responses to that question are not given in the

I spoke too soon:

Oddly, there isn't a graph about deployment, but there is this summary:

        Of those who responded, only three member organizations are in
        the early stages of deployment, while 5 stated they were
        satisfactorily underway and three others characterized IPv6 as
        being fully deployed in the networks they operate.
        
Unfortunately, the total number of responses is not given.  But the
number of answers to the question with the largest number of tallied
answers ("How Will IPv6 Be Deployed in Your Network?") is 44, and
integral fractions with 44 as the denominator can yield the percentages
given in the first graph (9%, 14%, 18%, and 41%).  So I'm guessing that
there were 44 respondents.  (Which is about 1/2 of the total of ISOC
organization members, a very good response rate for a questionnaire.)

Assuming that the number of respondents is 44 (and it must be at least
that, and less than about double that), the *3* respondents that have
IPv6 fully deployed is 7% of the respondents.  Assuming that all members
who have fully deployed IPv6 responded, it's about 1.5% of the members.

Dale

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:20:54 +1200 (ANAT)

http://ipv6pourtous.free.fr/rani/ 

May 2005: 
Give me 10,000 people ready to pay 1euro per month for IPv6 and you have it 
Give me 100,000 people that wants IPv6 and you have it for free 

December 2007: 
IPv6 is available 
http://ipv6pourtous.free.fr/actualites/#actu_25 

May be petitioning ISPs works in the US too? 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nathan Ward" <[email-masked]> 
To: [email-masked] 
Sent: Tuesday, 24 March, 2009 2:04:49 PM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected 
Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 

-- 
Nathan Ward

---

From: Simeon Lisec <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:24:17 -0700

Transition is testing in real environment in small scale all over the globe.
When ISP will be confident, the the rollout will be like trojan horse.

Reg
sim

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:37:02 -0700

To know more about 6rd: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-despres-6rd-02.txt
RD

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:39:27 -0400

> typing based on people I've talked or connected to in the past six  

Interesting...  I checked on a few by doing a Google search for "IPv6"
in these companies' web sites.  The results:
        
        Global Crossing:  "Global Crossing was the first-and remains the
        only-global communications provider with IPv6 natively deployed
        in both its private and public backbone networks"
        
        Teleglobe (part of Tata Communications):  "As a pioneering IPv6
        provider since 1996, our core network provides native IPv6
        capabilities for more than 50 locations worldwide."
        
        Easynet:  "Your search - site:easynet.com ipv6 - did not match
        any documents."
        
        Tiscali:  "IPv6 connectivity is patchy at best - Even amongst
        those ISPs who already utilise it." -- posted by Pothead_Pixie
        11th September 2008
        
        HE (Hurricane Electric):  Seems to have full IPv6 services, but
        only 9 locations in North America.  (Counting the New York and
        San Francisco areas as one location each.)
        
        NTT:  I fear that the information I want is in Japanese, which I
        do not read, but they do seem to offer a tunnelled IPv6 service
        -- but you have to be running Windows.
        
Ironically, of these, only NTT is an ISOC organization member.

So it looks like Global Crossing can provide IPv6 for serious enterprise
networks (as opposed to a handful of locations).  And NTT offers a
tunneled service to Japanese consumers.

So IPv6 service does exist, but it's pretty thinly available.

Dale

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:43:51 +0100

Broadband Forum (BBF) is currently doing a good job working on migration to IPv6 considering existing deployed architecture.

WT-177 Migration to IPv6 in the context of TR-101
WT-187 IPv6 for PPP

In that working group multiple operators (european and US operators) work together moving forward this issue. References can be found:

http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/technicalwip.php

Thomas

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Simeon Lisec
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2009 03:24
An: Nathan Ward; [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6

Reg
sim

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:59:37 -0700

On 23-Mar-2009, at 19:39, Dale Worley wrote:

> in these companies' web sites.

You may find it worthwhile to look in the routing table rather than  
relying on the respective marketing departments to publish sales  
material. Those were all examples that I have used in a production,  
commercial environment, most of them for what the RIRs call critical  
Internet infrastructure services.

> tunneled service to Japanese consumers.

Verio, which became NTT America, has been providing a very high- 
quality native IPv6 transit service in North America for many years.

> So IPv6 service does exist, but it's pretty thinly available.

I find your deductive powers questionable :-)

Joe

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:26:46 -0700

> I notice repeated emphasis on rolling-out IPv6 at the last few IETFs

mostly by the folk who don't actually have to roll it out.

> wonderful IPv6 is are not particularly relevant.

there was a two day google ipv6 gabfest thu and fri.  i left after three
hours to help bring up the ipv6 you're getting now.  talk is cheap.

as a large content provider friend said, give me a real dual stack load
balancer, and i can get serious.

as a large provider said, the host of this meeting charges more for an
ipv6 capable image.

blah blah blah.  it's lots of small pieces that dont just fit together
easily.  as geoff says, when there is real economic incentive behind it,
these kinks will get ironed out.

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:38:04 +1300

> Internet infrastructure services.

http://net-stats.ipv6.tilab.com/bgp/bgp-tree.html
gives a nice picture of the actual state of IPv6 BGP4 routing.
You will need quite a long strip of paper to print it.

The growth curve is at http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html

> Verio, which became NTT America, has been providing a very high-quality
> native IPv6 transit service in North America for many years.

You can also get IPv6 service in beta-test conditions from many other
ISPs, even where it's not an announced service.

    Brian

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:18:08 -0400

On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 20:59 -0700, Joe Abley wrote:
> material.

If a company actually has IPv6 service, but the salespeople don't know
it, for the purposes of the Real World, it doesn't matter.  At least, a
great deal less.  Sort of like the tractor factory in the just-former
Soviet Union, where the sales manager said, "If you come to our factory,
and find the right person to bribe, we *might* sell you a tractor."

But this circles back to the original problem -- IPv6 is in that gap
between "the technology works and is available" and "there are real
businesses out there selling large amounts of it".  What I don't see are
people specifically working on the latter problems.

Dale

---

From: Nathan Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:23:13 -0700

> people specifically working on the latter problems.

Why does someone have to sell something for it to be used?

--
Nathan Ward

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:23:29 -0400

On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 22:29 -0400, Howard, Lee wrote:
> I infer that there were 22 respondents, nearly all of whom have begun
> IPv6 deployments.  It may be that organizations who have not begun IPv6
> deplyments did not bother to respond.

Ah, thanks for finding that number.  So 3 respondents out of 22 have
actually completed deployment.  ("started deployment" means essentially
nothing.)  That's 13% of the respondents.  If we assume that the 22
respondents are representative, then 13% of the total members have
deployed.  If we assume that everybody who has deployed responded,
that's 1.5% of the members.

Dale

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:32:19 -0400

> May be petitioning ISPs works in the US too?

Fascinating!

Dale

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:40:50 -0700

> in these companies' web sites.  The results:

I have a different metric of success:

	try the Fortune 500 company websites with IPv6

(or pick any other group, e.g., companies included in the NYSE index, a
top websites list, etc.)

This was essentially how the public impression of the Internet grew back
in the early 1990s. Whether a technology is used inside the company may
be useful for salespeople, but until these sorts of sites support IPv6
the rest of the public has a disincentive to shift.

See https://fit.nokia.com/lars/meter/ipv6.html

Note that places that expose IPv6 to the consumer - e.g.,
www6.google.com - don't count, because we're not all going to start
retyping our URLs.

Joe

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:45:45 -0700

All of you who struggles to get rid of your redundant Social ticket.
Finally you have a taker :)

Send me an e-mail and I will lift you of this burden....

/Stefan Santesson

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:48:32 -0700

> www6.google.com - don't count, because we're not all going to start

For a description of an approach which doesn't require users to re- 
type their URLs, but which allows a staged and controlled roll-out of  
IPv6 content in collaboration with the users' ISP, see <http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ 
 >.

My ISP has such an arrangement in place. (This meeting network has  
such an arrangement in place.)

[dhcp-56f6:~]% host www.google.com
www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
www.l.google.com has address 74.125.19.99
www.l.google.com has address 74.125.19.103
www.l.google.com has address 74.125.19.104
www.l.google.com has address 74.125.19.147
www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:b003::68
[dhcp-56f6:~]%

Joe

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:48:56 +0100

> So IPv6 service does exist, but it's pretty thinly available.

I think you should work on your Google skills. HE is native as  
presented at serveral conferences as is Relicance Globalcom (FLAG)  
that have also presented this. There are more.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:51:34 -0700

> www6.google.com - don't count, because we're not all going to start

For the record, the stats at the URL above *do* include "IPv6- 
indicating" subdomains (currently www6, ipv6, ip6 and v6).

Click on the percentage figure to get the raw data, e.g., https://fit.nokia.com/lars/meter/data/2009-03-24-ietf-ipv6.txt

Lars

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:54:06 +0100

> people specifically working on the latter problems.

You are assuming that IPV6 will be an add on product. I doubt that.  
Even Cisco and Juniper are coming around and realizing that you can't  
give all the worlds MPLS features away and charge extra for packet  
forwarding.

IPv6 is not universally deployed and perhaps will never be. But it's  
certainly more deployed that what you are trying to claim or prove.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:03:30 -0700

> 	try the Fortune 500 company websites with IPv6

Hey, let's try closer to home. Count the more-or-less criticial IETF 
supporting web sites that don't have IPv6. Mine doesn't, and if it did, 
it wouldn't matter since I can't get there that way.

I suppose I could set up a tunnel for the server, but this is tricky 
with machines in hosting centers. And the hosting center (one of the 
larger firms) does not, AFAIK, offer native IPv6. Besides, my ISP 
doesn't offer IPv6, so I'd have to set up yet another tunnel for the office.

I did manage to ping another host using IPv6 once, That was four years 
ago. Since then, I have not, as far as I know, found it useful.

There is an economic incentive for ISPs to stary with IPv4, where 
addresses are scarce and worth about $5 US per month per address. Until 
this incentive either goes away or is countered by an equivalent 
enticement, we are not going to see consumer-facing ISPs deploy IPv6. 
The strange thing about this is that as IPv4 addresses become more 
scarce, they become more valuable, thereby increasing the incentive 
system that is holding us back.

--
Dean Willis

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:07:54 -0700

>> www6.google.com - don't count, because we're not all going to start

FWIW, I should have said "don't count IMO" - as Lars noted, they're
included in his stats. That can be added to browsers, e.g., to try all
the alternate prefixes, if needed eventually.

> For a description of an approach which doesn't require users to re-type
> their URLs, but which allows a staged and controlled roll-out of IPv6
> content in collaboration with the users' ISP, see
> <http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/>.

If I ask for an AAAA record, I should get an AAAA record - regardless of
whether I ask over IPv4 or IPv6. It shouldn't matter what ISP
arrangements are in place with Google.

I.e., IMO, this is a good example how to put a roadblock in IPv6 rollout.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:08:48 -0700

Dean Willis wrote:
> supporting web sites that don't have IPv6.

FWIW, Lars has a set of IETF-related sites as well.

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:12:46 -0700

> arrangements are in place with Google.

But it does matter -- it matters to the user who has to wait for  
timeouts because the v6 network between her host and the content is  
not well-exercised and hence more likely to be broken than the v4  
network, and it matters to the content provider for whom a poor user  
experience has a quantifiable cost.

> I.e., IMO, this is a good example how to put a roadblock in IPv6  

I see it more as a way to get traffic to flow at least in some parts  
of an otherwise gridlocked city.

Joe

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:13:01 -0700

> FWIW, Lars has a set of IETF-related sites as well.

The "IETF country" is a set of domain names taken from the email  
addresses that appear in the authors' section of all IDs. (Thanks,  
Jari.)

Lars

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:23:37 +1300

BTW, we're trying to track status in my corner of the woods.
http://www.geek.nz/ipv6/
We hope to see the amount of green increasing.

    Brian

---

From: Nathan Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:26:09 -0700

> (or pick any other group, e.g., companies included in the NYSE  

I would prefer to look at number of end users, not number of  
commercially successful business end users.

End users, not necessarily websites.

> www6.google.com - don't count, because we're not all going to start

I agree.

95%+ of IPv6 packets that I see are between people that are not typing  
special URLs or whatever. Most of them don't even know what IPv6 is.  
These consumers are not exposed to IPv6.
Some of these people have heard of IPv6, but believe they are not  
using it.

Those packets are between two end users - not between clients and  
servers.

IPv6 is not going to be a requirement on web servers for quite a long  
time, and it is not indicative of how widely deployed IPv6 is.

CGN+Dual stack, DS-Lite and NAT64 really take the requirement for IPv6  
on websites away for a very very long time - until we are unable to re- 
claim IPv4 addresses from end users for use on servers.

--
Nathan Ward

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:25:04 -0700

Joe Abley wrote:
> timeouts because the v6 network between her host and the content is not
> well-exercised and hence more likely to be broken than the v4 network,

Then that user doesn't have IPv6; they have sporadic, broken IPv6.

> and it matters to the content provider for whom a poor user experience
> has a quantifiable cost.

As long as content providers require ISP 'registration' before
responding with AAAA records, we can forget IPv6.

The Internet means:

	connect to the Internet
	now you can connect to everyone on the Internet

An IPv6 Internet means the same. It doesn't mean:
	connect to the IPv6 Internet
	foreach site {
		wait for your ISP to register with that site
		then you can connect to that site
	}

The first sequence is simple, direct, and how the Internet grew
exponentially. The second sequence is a nonterminating loop that stalls
growth (at best, it renders connectivity linear, not exponential).

> I see it more as a way to get traffic to flow at least in some parts of
> an otherwise gridlocked city.

The impact of this hack is to kill the exponential growth of IPv6. Nice
trade-off - better service for users who register, but you're killing
IPv6 for the community as a whole, IMO.

Joe

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:12:51 -0700

> End users, not necessarily websites.

Me, too. I trust you read through the text on the page, which talks  
about the why and how. The short story is that I'm not an operator,  
and so I don't have any way to look at meaningfully large traffic  
volumes.

Lars

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:23:19 -0700

> Then that user doesn't have IPv6; they have sporadic, broken IPv6.

Right. Like the sporadic, broken IPv4 they enjoy every day, except  
statistically more so.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:27:07 -0700

> Right. Like the sporadic, broken IPv4 they enjoy every day, except

Hmmmm. I don't recall Google requiring ISPs to register IPv4 nets with
them before they'd allow users to access their system, though.

So if IPv6 is as broken as IPv4, why treat its users so differently?

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:40:00 -0700

> So if IPv6 is as broken as IPv4, why treat its users so differently?

I'm unsure what point you're leading up to, given that you know the  
answers to these questions. Also, the level of "where do I find  
privacy screens for my sushi, and how do I get there from the  
airport?" content of this thread seems low.

IPv4 is the baseline level of network quality over which you can  
deliver service today, there being no production alternative which  
works more reliably.

IPv6 performance in general is anecdotally (and occasionally  
quantitatively) worse than IPv4 performance. My assumption is that  
this is partly because of an inferior topology and partly because of a  
lack of operational priority and experience given to v6 traffic given  
that customers scream louder when v4 breaks, and that the number of v6  
screamers is much smaller.

I think it's fair to say that IPv6 performance is much higher in some  
parts of the network than in others. In some places v6 is an  
experimental, unsupported service. In other places v6 is a production,  
commercial service.

Google's appraoch makes sense to me. I don't understand why anybody  
would think that "AAAA response for all" would be better for google  
users in general. I can see why people would think "no AAAAs at all"  
would be a better answer for google users today, but that seems a  
little short-sighted.

Joe

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:43:00 -0400

> We hope to see the amount of green increasing.

There are some fascinating comparisons there.  One that stands out is
that "New Zealand Personal Domains" has a high level of support
(excepting for ipv6.org.nz!), whereas "New Zealand IPv6 Steering Group
Members" has a low level of support.

Dale

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:53:23 -0700

> would be a better answer for google users today, but that seems a  

Dunno if 74attendees is really the place for this conversation.    
However, since we are discussing it here, I will add my two cents.

As an end-user of IPv6 with a dual-homed IPv6 network at home, I find  
it very frustrating that I cannot use Google over IPv6.   However, it  
is not causing me any sort of operational problem.   The fact that  
Google is doing this bugs me, and I really wish they would just  
publish their zones correctly and be done with it, yet I would rather  
that they do something than nothing, and they are doing more than most.

If they were to continue doing this as time goes forward, there would  
come a time where I would have to consider their behavior  
antisocial.   However, right now it seems social.   The more other  
major content providers roll out native IPv6 support, the more  
antisocial what Google is doing will seem.

So get to work!   ;')

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:02:08 +1200 (ANAT)

I think what googles is doing is great, they solve the issue of user experience against the poor IPv6 connectivity (and redundancy) in some part of the IPv6 network. 

What may be needed is that they share this IPv6 list with others, so others can do the same instead of building their own list. 

I expect at some point in time, they will say ok we are all IPv6 now, and if you have poor connectivity to our servers you are the exception rather than the rule, and drop this IPv6 privileged list. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]> 
To: "Joe Abley" <[email-masked]> 
Cc: [email-masked], "Joe Touch" <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, 25 March, 2009 12:53:23 PM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected 
Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 

So get to work! ;')

---

From: Nathan Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:19:30 -0700

> Members" has a low level of support.

Many of those have IPv6 in to their networks, but are unwilling to  
push AAAA records for exactly the same reasons as Google.

Personal websites do not really suffer from the same level of care  
about whether end users can access them or not.

--
Nathan Ward

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:22:59 +1100

> So if IPv6 is as broken as IPv4, why treat its users so differently?

Once upon a time, a whole passle of people bought IPv6-enabled  
residential gateway appliances with a factory default configuration in  
which the 6to4 tunnel was turned on by default.

Those people got-- and most of those still have-- native IPv6 prefixes  
advertised on their private LAN bridges despite the fact that their  
ISP's are still trying not to deploy IPv6.  These people are more  
often than not, still getting either no IPv6 service or worse.  It  
depends on the following factors that are mostly out of their control  
(or even visibility):

+ Whether 6to4 relay routers are in place for both the forward and  
reverse path to/from non-6to4 remote IPv6 addresses.

+ Whether protocol 41 is blocked by stateful firewalls in their paths  
to their 6to4 relays and the IPv4 default-free zone.

Those people have to be treated differently because service providers  
of various kinds are A) deliberately squelching IPv6 tunnels  
altogether, because they can't apply a more finely grained policy  
enforcement regime, and/or B) refusing to deploy 6to4 relay routers  
for their IPv6-native customers *or* their IPv4-only customers (much  
less both).

Strangely, it turns out that when people can't get to website www.example.com 
, or it takes two minutes for their browser to stop trying IPv6 and  
fall back to IPv4, and they eventually discover the reason (good luck  
with that) that their service provider has lousy IPv6 service compared  
to competitors, people don't ever seem to blame this poor performance  
on their service providers and demand better service.

They blame it on *everyone* else: content providers, the vendors of  
their browsers and operating systems, their router vendor, the IETF,  
their cats and dogs, Paris Hilton, etc.  Then, they turn off IPv6, and  
they curse anyone who mentions its hated name in their presence.

If content providers want to offer IPv6 service at the same DNS  
hostnames that they currently offer IPv4 service, they MUST feel  
confident that service providers aren't working against their efforts  
by crippling any IPv6 transition mechanisms their customers might be  
using.  Or at least that their customers have a supported way to get  
reasonable IPv6 service in the event that IPv4 transition mechanisms  
aren't appropriate.

That's why IPv6 users need to be treated differently.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:23:46 -0700

On Mar 24, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> I expect at some point in time, they will say ok we are all IPv6  
> now, and if you have poor connectivity to our servers you are the  
> exception rather than the rule, and drop this IPv6 privileged list.

I suggested this at the IPv6 meeting last week, and the rejoinder was  
that in all likelihood this list wouldn't work because different sites  
might have different reachability/latency issues.   There was also  
some mumbling about antitrust issues, which I think was probably  
silly, but you never know.

The degenerate solution to this problem is to just have a different  
DNS root for IPv6-safe networks, and let people choose which root to  
use.   Needless to say, I don't think this is a practical alternative;  
I mention it merely to illustrate which slippery slope you are going  
down when you try to do what you've proposed.

Much as I would like to be able to opt in to this system, I am afraid  
that what is really needed to make it work is just more IPv6  
deployment; to me, that is the knob that needs turning.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:56:23 -0400

Please, please, please, take this discussion to another mailing list,
and don't continue it on the 74Attendees list.

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:02:40 -0700

> of an otherwise gridlocked city.
Absolutely.

Being a daily user of Free from my home office, I started using Google 
on its IPv6 dedicated URL as soon as it appeared. Agreed, this was not a 
long term solution.

But I stopped needing this URL when, thanks to the agreement between 
Free and Google, it also worked in IPv6 with the regular URL.
In my understanding, this agreement is to check that users that have 
activate IPv6 won't be disgusted of doing it by a degraded Google 
access. This is IMHO a very wise precaution.

Later, I checked that the parallel TCP connections used for GoogleMap 
are also IPv6. They traverse no NAT whatsoever, and therefore don't use 
ports that IPv4 NATs need for other application. Similarly, BitTorrent 
works without NAT traversal between IPv6 users, with as many TCP 
connections as seems convenient.

If other ISPs would do the same (i.e. native IPv6 to all, at no extra 
charge, and with verification with Google that it does work 
satisfactorily), then we would be much better prepared for the IPv4 
address burnout. 

One more comment: believing that using 6to4 to get an IPv6 address is 
doing real IPv6 is a dramatic mistake for the futre (unfortunately 
rather common today in the US according to Google statistic). It will 
create serious problems because 6to4 users are NOT GUARANTEED to have a 
return path from server that have NATIVE IPv6 addresses.

Regards,

RD

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:36:08 -0700

On 24 mrt 2009, at 22:02, Rémi Després wrote:

> One more comment: believing that using 6to4 to get an IPv6 address  
> is doing real IPv6 is a dramatic mistake for the futre  
> (unfortunately rather common today in the US according to Google  
> statistic). It will create serious problems because 6to4 users are  
> NOT GUARANTEED to have a return path from server that have NATIVE  
> IPv6 addresses.

It's not hard to run a local 6to4 gateway and tunnel packets for 6to4  
users directly rather than depend on a remote public gateway. You  
still need to depend on the public gateways to receive the incoming  
traffic, though.

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:03:59 -0700

Iljitsch van Beijnum  -  le (m/j/a) 3/24/09 10:36 PM:
>> create serious problems because 6to4 users are NOT GUARANTEED to have 
>> a return path from server that have NATIVE IPv6 addresses.
>
> users directly rather than depend on a remote public gateway. 

> You still need to depend on the public gateways to receive the 
> incoming traffic, though.
THIS is the point.

==> don't use 6to4 for other applications than initially intended: i.e.:
- IPv6 between IPv4 clouds
- NOT between native and IPv4 clouds

RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm than 
good. IMHO, it should be deprecated.

RD

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:05:36 -0700

[moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, Rémi Després wrote:
>
> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm  
> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated.

I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a  
proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than  
6to4.  I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent  
on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a  
working group activity.