IPv6 is better than ipv4
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why... Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook. Fair to ask your business 1) does mobile performance matter 2) are you taking advantage of this 10% page load speedup that ipv6 provides?
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why...
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Fair to ask your business 1) does mobile performance matter 2) are you taking advantage of this 10% page load speedup that ipv6 provides?
srs question: "What percentage of the mobile world prefers v6 over v4?" I ask because perhaps the market for your app is such that v6 is actually a hinderance to the userbase... (or is slower in your market) Are there more holistic studies about this?
Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average faster. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why...
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Fair to ask your business 1) does mobile performance matter 2) are you taking advantage of this 10% page load speedup that ipv6 provides?
srs question: "What percentage of the mobile world prefers v6 over v4?"
I ask because perhaps the market for your app is such that v6 is actually a hinderance to the userbase... (or is slower in your market)
Are there more holistic studies about this?
CenturyTel in this area provides IPv6 to DSL customers. Thank you, - Nich
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:43 AM To: Christopher Morrow Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average faster.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile- networ ks-why-and-how.html
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Fair to ask your business 1) does mobile performance matter 2) are you taking advantage of this 10% page load speedup that ipv6
provides?
srs question: "What percentage of the mobile world prefers v6 over v4?"
I ask because perhaps the market for your app is such that v6 is actually a hinderance to the userbase... (or is slower in your market)
Are there more holistic studies about this?
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average faster.
Akamai, linkedin, and facebook are not lightweights when it comes to data analysis. Meaning, they know about selection basis. I'll also mention that google has v6 as well. FTFA, Akamai states they isolated dual-stack iphones on vzw and ran parallel RUM v4 and v6 tests. I believe FB did the same thing and presented the data at nanog 64 CB
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.lists@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','morrowc.lists@gmail.com');>> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cb.list6@gmail.com');>> wrote:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why...
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Fair to ask your business 1) does mobile performance matter 2) are you taking advantage of this 10% page load speedup that ipv6 provides?
srs question: "What percentage of the mobile world prefers v6 over v4?"
I ask because perhaps the market for your app is such that v6 is actually a hinderance to the userbase... (or is slower in your market)
Are there more holistic studies about this?
On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average faster.
Akamai, linkedin, and facebook are not lightweights when it comes to data analysis. Meaning, they know about selection basis. I'll also mention that google has v6 as well.
FTFA, Akamai states they isolated dual-stack iphones on vzw and ran parallel RUM v4 and v6 tests. I believe FB did the same thing and presented the data at nanog 64
CB
Just an ancillary thought. Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> wrote:
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat?
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dcorbe@hammerfiber.com');>> wrote:
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat?
YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6. I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative. Does it really matter what single digit % of Alexa 1M has a AAAA?
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> wrote:
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat?
YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6.
I understand that tmo's (us at least) network is v6 native to the handset... my question was really trying to point out that even if tmo is 100M customers, there are ~3x that on sprint/vz/att/etc ... so just in the US is 25% repreesntative? and outside the US what does the mobile address family spread look like? then, what if the resource being accessed to by the mobile users in zimbabwe are local to zimbabwe and there's only ipv4 versions of that mobile service... the reasons to go v6 on both sides aren't as clear. (to me)
I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative.
I get why things look better in the cases of FB/TMO (as one example)... but selling 'you should ipv6 because FB/TMO is better!' isn't really true all ways.
Does it really matter what single digit % of Alexa 1M has a AAAA?
:) I have no idea...
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> wrote:
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat?
YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6.
I understand that tmo's (us at least) network is v6 native to the handset... my question was really trying to point out that even if tmo is 100M customers, there are ~3x that on sprint/vz/att/etc ... so just in the US is 25% repreesntative?
Sprint, vzw, and at&t all have ipv6 enabled by default on many handsets. I believe the samsung s6 was the first to launch on all national carrier with v6 on by default
and outside the US what does the mobile address family spread look like?
Not sure, but v6 does live a dramatic life outside the US too http://labs.apnic.net/ipv6-measurement/AS/5/5/8/3/6/
then, what if the resource being accessed to by the mobile users in zimbabwe are local to zimbabwe and there's only ipv4 versions of that mobile service... the reasons to go v6 on both sides aren't as clear. (to me)
Afrnic has v4, apnic does not. As with the Jio example in india, networks need to grow and they cannot do that well with v4. And, the things that make v4 slow in the USA likely apply elsewhere.
I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative.
I get why things look better in the cases of FB/TMO (as one example)... but selling 'you should ipv6 because FB/TMO is better!' isn't really true all ways.
Your network, your problem. The akamai / fb / linkedin data are just data points. If you are in the nanog region and want data to show up on mobiles, it is likely 10% faster if your server has v6.
Does it really matter what single digit % of Alexa 1M has a AAAA?
:) I have no idea...
Yes. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Daniel Corbe" <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:41:33 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> wrote:
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat?
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Yes.
REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new thingies) 3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking and reachabilty 4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught with your pants (proverbial!) down 2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4... you can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users. 3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either: a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline services...) b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat c) meh I can't see that 'marketing' is really going to matter... I mean, if you haven't gotten the message now: http://i.imgur.com/8vZOU0T.gif
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Daniel Corbe" <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:41:33 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> wrote:
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat?
I would be surprised if more than 10% - 20% of networks have received effective marketing on IPv6. Look at how many network operators that don't "get" basic network security alerts like "There is a long since patched vulnerability being actively exploited on the Internet right now. Your equipment will reset to default in 18.5 hours of infection. Please patch now." Equipment resetting to default is a metric crap ton more serious than IPv6 implementation and people don't take that seriously. Think outside of the NANOG bubble. (I *REALLY* hate the way this list replies to the individual and not the list... and doesn't have a bracketed name in the subject.) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 12:31:43 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: Yes. REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new thingies) 3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking and reachabilty 4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught with your pants (proverbial!) down 2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4... you can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users. 3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either: a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline services...) b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat c) meh I can't see that 'marketing' is really going to matter... I mean, if you haven't gotten the message now: http://i.imgur.com/8vZOU0T.gif <blockquote> ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" < morrowc.lists@gmail.com > To: "Daniel Corbe" < dcorbe@hammerfiber.com > Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:41:33 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe < dcorbe@hammerfiber.com > wrote:
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat? </blockquote>
On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I would be surprised if more than 10% - 20% of networks have received effective marketing on IPv6.
Look at how many network operators that don't "get" basic network security alerts like "There is a long since patched vulnerability being actively exploited on the Internet right now. Your equipment will reset to default in 18.5 hours of infection. Please patch now." Equipment resetting to default is a metric crap ton more serious than IPv6 implementation and people don't take that seriously.
Think outside of the NANOG bubble.
I hesitated to reply on this thread, but want to reiterate the point Mike’s makes above, as he is spot on - There is a large number of Internet service providers who: - Don’t attend NANOG, or follow this mailing list - Don’t attend ARIN, or follow its mailing lists - Don’t have sales reps for the large-box vendors stopping by every quarter to tell them about the latest trend or gadget to buy… - Either run their Internet services in addition to many other tasks (e.g. small MSO’s handling cable channels, telephone services, and everything else), or - Operate their Internet services on behalf of a small community (community ISPs, wireless ISPs in rural areas) on shoestring or even completely donated budgets. These folks are your peers, but not literally, as they are often downstream of a single ISP providing service to a small customer base with not much growth. For them, IPv6 reality is only just beginning, as each now comes into ARIN (usually several years since their last time in) and gets told “Yes, the regional IPv4 free pool really has run out - we simply don’t have any IPv4 blocks to issue to you.” Sometimes they’ve heard of IPv6, but having heard about it for more than a decade before it was actually needed, they just figured it was a failed technology waiting to die… (None of this was helped by the fact that the IPv6 marketing also occurred without any meaningful technologies or strategy to enable transition - these only appeared after the fact in the last five years when several operators realized that they had to actually make IPv6 deployable in the real world…) These smaller ISPs who are just now newly discovering IPv6 are not “ignorant” - they just haven’t had time or resources to worry about a problem that always seemed theoretical until today. Some go to the transfer market, some go to the wait list, and some suddenly decide to learn about IPv6 in a hurry - some do a combination of the above. What these organizations need is realistic pointers to information (e.g. NANOG archives, IPv6 World Congress info, ARIN’s IPv6 wiki) that lets them understand exactly what and how others are handling this transition. We do need to do outreach to them so that they know they’ve got something real to deal with, and to start learning - what isn’t particularly helpful is pure marketing to the effect that “delivering Internet services over IPv6 is easy” or “you don’t need IPv6 at all”… /John
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, John Curran wrote:
There is a large number of Internet service providers who:
Not only ISPs, but also content: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/06/05/1744246/distrowatch-finally-adds-su... "When asked why DistroWatch enabled IPv6 access to their server at this time, Smith answered: "Partly it was an experiment to see how much interest there was in IPv6. Partly it was because it is a little embarrassing (in 2016) to have a technology focused website that is not making use of IPv6." " Slashdot, Github etc, still no IPv6 though. I talked to LWN.net (who does have IPv6) about if they could write an article about IPv6. I offered to contribute text. We'll see how that goes. Linux Foundation seems to have some IPv6 related presentations etc. Perhaps it's time to re-do this and say "now we're not only talking about IPv6, it's actually happening and there are hundreds of millions of devices out there now with IPv6 access". I think a lot of people haven't heard of this. They've heard of IPv6 but as you say, they still think it's in the future. It would be helpful if they would get an update that this is happening NOW, and everything is ready to go. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Warning: Hat = Enterprise Network Admin Sarcasm = High In a message written on Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:31:43PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive
Wazzat? Isn't the C for Carrier? So, not my problem.
2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new thingies)
I got a /24 from my provider years ago. I only use half of it. If we needed to economize we could probably go ahead and deploy name based virtual hosting, the server guys have talked about that for years. I can't imagine I will ever run out of IPv4.
3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking and reachabilty
IPv4 currently has more reach than IPv6? Didn't you just tell me people aren't deploying IPv6.
4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network
I can't find it in the docs for our IBM Token Ring switch that connects the payroll mainframe to the ERP NEC box. That's our only critical application.
and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught with your pants (proverbial!) down
I thought all the providers were deploying that CGN thing so IPv4 kept working. They would never leave us high and dry, right?
2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4... you can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users.
I was told DNS64 fixed that problem, and carriers would have to deploy it as a transition strategy.
3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA
My IPAM software doesn't have AAAA support because I haven't bought a support contract for it for 10 years. Do I really need to buy new IPAM software?
I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either: a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline services...) b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat c) meh
Actually it's more my boss has 100 "critical" initiatives and staff to do 20 of them, and IPv6 isn't even on the list. Our planning window is crisis to crisis, err, I mean quarter to quarter. Will my web site go down this quarter if I don't deploy it? Otherwise we can put that off. Sadly, I wish all these answers were some sort of carachture of reality, but I think they are too many folks reality. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
On Thu 2016-Jun-02 11:05:54 -0700, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
Warning: Hat = Enterprise Network Admin Sarcasm = High ...
Sadly, I wish all these answers were some sort of carachture of reality, but I think they are too many folks reality.
IOW: http://ipv6excuses.com/ / https://twitter.com/ipv6excuses -- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
On Thu, June 2, 2016 13:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Yes.
âREALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new thingies) 3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking and reachabilty 4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network
(more, reasonably valid observations elided) Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had done. When describing why I went with an IPv6 only solution for this setup, he responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already." OK, maybe it's not *just* marketing, but marketing (using the term broadly) is still a very large part of it. -- Jeff
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com> wrote:
On Thu, June 2, 2016 13:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Yes.
REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new thingies) 3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking and reachabilty 4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network
(more, reasonably valid observations elided)
Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had done. When describing why I went with an IPv6 only solution for this setup, he responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already."
OK, maybe it's not *just* marketing, but marketing (using the term broadly) is still a very large part of it.
your example sounds like ignorance, not marketing.
On Thu, June 2, 2016 15:45, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com> wrote:
Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had done. When describing why I went with an IPv6 only solution for this setup, he responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already."
OK, maybe it's not *just* marketing, but marketing (using the term broadly) is still a very large part of it.
âyour example sounds like ignorance, not marketing.â
No doubt his response was born of ignorance. The correct response is...well, education, not necessarily marketing...but at the 30k foot level, they amount to the same thing (thus my parenthetical comment about using the term "marketing" broadly), as I think the upthread comments were doing. -- Jeff
responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already."
I can't say I'm surprised. Within the past year we've had mail from people here on NANOG who haven't gotten the memo that Network Solutions and Verisign are not the same company. R's, John
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat? Yes.
I have a confession: I don't use IPv6. I don't use IPv6 at home because: 1. My Verizon FiOS link does not support IPv6. 2. My Cox Cable Internet link does not support IPv6. 3. The colo I tunnel to in order to announce my addresses via BGP does not support IPv6. 4. IPv6 does not offer me enough value to pony up the $500 initial and $100/year ARIN fees I would have to pay in order to have parity with my IPv4 installation, at least not until my other vendors support it. I don't use IPv6 at work because: 1. My employer moved half of everything to the Amazon cloud. AWS does not support IPv6. 2. My employer moved the other half of everything to various software as a service vendors, none of whom implement IPv6. Marketing problem? If it won't work with -any- of the vendors I do business with, that's not a marketing problem. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 deployment on the slow-boat? Yes.
I have a confession: I don't use IPv6.
I don't use IPv6 at home because:
1. My Verizon FiOS link does not support IPv6. 2. My Cox Cable Internet link does not support IPv6. 3. The colo I tunnel to in order to announce my addresses via BGP does not support IPv6. 4. IPv6 does not offer me enough value to pony up the $500 initial and $100/year ARIN fees I would have to pay in order to have parity with my IPv4 installation, at least not until my other vendors support it.
I don't use IPv6 at work because:
1. My employer moved half of everything to the Amazon cloud. AWS does not support IPv6. 2. My employer moved the other half of everything to various software as a service vendors, none of whom implement IPv6.
Marketing problem? If it won't work with -any- of the vendors I do business with, that's not a marketing problem.
Regards, Bill Herrin
Yes, the data shows your page loads will be 10% slower than other folks. I am sure you don't mind CB
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com <javascript:;> bill@herrin.us <javascript:;> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why...
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Says the company that consistently refused to dual-stack its customers by default... Rubens
Rubens, good day. Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:32:29PM -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why...
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Says the company that consistently refused to dual-stack its customers by default...
What's your point? Does their technical reasoning or proving grounds for it lacking the needed expertise/experience due to the problems you're describing? Any other thigs you can say about the actual study? -- Eygene Ryabinkin, National Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute" Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why...
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Says the company that consistently refused to dual-stack its customers by default...
Looks like akamai is going default ipv4 and ipv6 for new customers. https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/four-years-since-world-ipv6-launch-entering... AWS / Cloudfront / Fastly - please have a look at how it is done. I think Cloudflare already did this.
Rubens
participants (17)
-
Ca By -
Christopher Morrow -
Daniel Corbe -
Eygene Ryabinkin -
Hugo Slabbert -
Jeff McAdams -
John Curran -
John Levine -
Josh Luthman -
Leo Bicknell -
Mark Tinka -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Mike Hammett -
Nicholas Warren -
Randy Bush -
Rubens Kuhl -
William Herrin