Niels Bakker wrote:
It would also be nice if operators with end users started offering native multicast. Although the AMS-IX multicast initiative started off with lots of enthusiasm, two years later it seems to have died almost completely.
* pete@he.iki.fi (Petri Helenius) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 15:27 CEST]:
Most multicast projects go this way. The reason usually being one or more of; A) ISP's want to charge extra for multicast B) No content is being served over multicast C) Firewalls do not pass multicast (usually non-issue on home users)
Indeed. I'm personally most amazed that B) companies like shoutcast.com (who must be spending fortunes on bandwidth for all their streams) aren't pushing multicast more. Cheers, -- Niels.
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 03:49:04PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
Niels Bakker wrote:
It would also be nice if operators with end users started offering native multicast. Although the AMS-IX multicast initiative started off with lots of enthusiasm, two years later it seems to have died almost completely.
* pete@he.iki.fi (Petri Helenius) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 15:27 CEST]:
Most multicast projects go this way. The reason usually being one or more of; A) ISP's want to charge extra for multicast B) No content is being served over multicast C) Firewalls do not pass multicast (usually non-issue on home users)
Indeed. I'm personally most amazed that B) companies like shoutcast.com (who must be spending fortunes on bandwidth for all their streams) aren't pushing multicast more.
The problem is it's somewhat futile. Even at the larger providers there is a great deal of fear at times that Multicast will make the network unstable. Then there is the lack of education/cost-benifit on the edges for a lot of the smaller providers. They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure, break the config, etc.. the list goes on and on. Then you get the people who are stuck with an upstream that doesn't know how to speak multicast or operate it. If you are a customer of (i'm using this as an example, so don't come after me) Savvis or InterNap, you use them to reach the "big" folks. If they don't have multicast enabled you don't have many choices unless you talk to someone who doesn't mind unicasting you a multicast tunnel, or go the commercial route ala multicasttech. Then you do have the above 'firewall' issue to contend with also, as well as other minor misconfigurations ... such as enabling igmp snooping on your switches can make multicast not work right.. some switch vendors ship this as a default setting.. Just a few of the barriers involved. I do encourage people to contact your upstream, enable multicast, at least speak mbgp to them and advertize your prefixes. Enabling pim or (msdp if necessary) can be done at a later date and doesn't require a bgp session flap. Contact your peers, ask them if they do multicast. I've seen the number of peers that have multicast enabled increase over the past year. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure, break the config, etc.. the list goes on and on.
Speaking from a provider who used to run multicast, and now doesn't: Customers don't want it. I can count our customer requests for multicast on both hands for the last two years. Of those, only one thought it was important, the rest were just playing with it. In fact, pretty much the only place we see it anymore is on RFP's from educational groups. My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast. So that leaves Cable Companies (good luck for them to do something intelligent) or DSL providers (perhaps they might) to make it happen. If a few million end users could just 'get it', then people running streaming services would be beating on backbone providers to carry it around. There is also a payment problem. If a unicast bit enters your network, you can be assured it takes one path to the destination. When a multicast bit enters your network, it could take one path, or it could take 50 paths through your network. The latter does cost the ISP more. This also makes peering an issue, as many people use ratio. If there was a significant amount of multicast traffic, hosting ISP's would send end-user ISP's one small stream that they would then replicate. That would pretty much make the ratio completely opposite of what it is today, due to unicast streaming. I'll be the first to jump on the multicast bandwagon, but I don't work for an eyeball provider. The first adopters need to be DSL and cable modem providers, to the end user, on by default. Then we can go somewhere. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
At 10:51 AM 7/9/2002 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure, break the config, etc.. the list goes on and on.
Speaking from a provider who used to run multicast, and now doesn't:
Customers don't want it.
I can count our customer requests for multicast on both hands for the last two years. Of those, only one thought it was important, the rest were just playing with it. In fact, pretty much the only place we see it anymore is on RFP's from educational groups.
My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast.
Yahoo/Broadcast.com pushed this pretty heavily. MS's own media player supports multicast, so there definitely a *lot* of clients out there. http://broadcast.yahoo.com/home.html There are a list of providers supporting multicast in conjunction with Yahoo/Broadcast.com found at: http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/ I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for one of 'em... ) To find out if you are viewing via unicast/multicast in Windows Media Player, the option is View->Statistics, then in the Network section... -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless! \ Director, Engineering | @ @ | \ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:06:10AM -0500, Chris Parker wrote:
My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast.
Yahoo/Broadcast.com pushed this pretty heavily. MS's own media player supports multicast, so there definitely a *lot* of clients out there.
There is a lot of client _SOFTWARE_ that supports it. There are very few clients on multicast enabled networks.
There are a list of providers supporting multicast in conjunction with Yahoo/Broadcast.com found at:
http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/
I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for one of 'em... )
It's a cute list. Where's AT&T (with all the old @Home customers)? Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either. Almost as important, people like Sprint are on the list. Last I checked (admittedly, over a year ago) there was no multicast for Sprint DSL customers, and Sprint high speed customers had to specifically request it, it was not turned on by default. Result, less than 1% of Sprint's customers actually had it turned on, I believe. I'd be suprised if 1% of _residential end users_ were on multicast enabled networks today. Very surprised. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
It's a cute list. Where's AT&T (with all the old @Home customers)? Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either.
UUNET supports multicast, although the quality of that experience for me wasn't very good. Last I heard its one price to receive multicast and additional to generate multicast through them. John
At 11:16 AM 7/9/2002 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:06:10AM -0500, Chris Parker wrote:
My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast.
Yahoo/Broadcast.com pushed this pretty heavily. MS's own media player supports multicast, so there definitely a *lot* of clients out there.
There is a lot of client _SOFTWARE_ that supports it. There are very few clients on multicast enabled networks.
I've got a couple million... not that many use it, though.
There are a list of providers supporting multicast in conjunction with Yahoo/Broadcast.com found at:
http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/
I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for one of 'em... )
It's a cute list. Where's AT&T (with all the old @Home customers)? Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either.
I didn't say it was ubiquitous. While some are notably lacking, you do have some larger networks on that list. Note this is also just partners/peers with Yahoo/Broadcast, not everyone who supports multicast on their networks.
Almost as important, people like Sprint are on the list. Last I checked (admittedly, over a year ago) there was no multicast for Sprint DSL customers, and Sprint high speed customers had to specifically request it, it was not turned on by default. Result, less than 1% of Sprint's customers actually had it turned on, I believe.
I'd be suprised if 1% of _residential end users_ were on multicast enabled networks today. Very surprised.
It may be a bit higher, but the number who access multicast content is decidedly tiny. More content would probably push it higher, as much fun as it is watching the ISS live on Nasa TV, it does get a bit dry. :) -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless! \ Director, Engineering | @ @ | \ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
Chris Parker wrote:
It may be a bit higher, but the number who access multicast content is decidedly tiny. More content would probably push it higher, as much fun as it is watching the ISS live on Nasa TV, it does get a bit dry. :)
I think this is a case of "if you build it, they will come". RealPlayer's default configuration is to first attempt to use multicast, then fail-over to UDP, then fail-over to TCP. In other words, if multicast is available, the program will use it. I don't know about other streaming clients, but I would guess that others would behave similarly. -- David
Multicast won't become pervasive until there are applications that use it (as has been pointed out in this thread), and those applications won't be widely-used until there is some momentum with high-speed connectivity (ie > 1Mbps and probably more like 10+Mb/s). Many multicast applications (primarily research/education networks) are for interactive communication, and useful interactivity requires lots more bandwidth and much lower latency and jitter than is available even on cable/DSL. If you have a chance to see what's going on with multicast (and anything else) on Internet2, you'll see what happens when bandwidth and latency become less-significant problems. The expansion of Internet2 to diverse disciplines as well as K-12 and non-research higher-ed schools will expose a larger and more diverse group to these applications. Though IPv6 uses multicast more than IPv4, the default use is basically a replacement for existing broadcast-based functions (ARP, DHCP, etc). IPv6 will not magically solve multicast problems outside the local subnet. Multicast being integrated into IPv6 will probably make it more palatable than it is now. Pete.
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/
I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for one of 'em... )
It's a cute list. Where's AT&T (with all the old @Home customers)? Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either.
Almost as important, people like Sprint are on the list. Last I checked (admittedly, over a year ago) there was no multicast for Sprint DSL customers, and Sprint high speed customers had to specifically request it, it was not turned on by default. Result, less than 1% of Sprint's customers actually had it turned on, I believe.
I'd be suprised if 1% of _residential end users_ were on multicast enabled networks today. Very surprised.
Speaking as the person who got Voyager.Net on the list, here's what the deal was at the time (~2+ years ago) You configure a tunnel between you and the broadcast.com folks and speak mbgp+msdp over it to get their (S, G) state info and traffic. They gave information on how to enable the dialup ports, etc.. for multicast. We did have a few customers complain "what's this 224 crap traffic you are sending us". The broadcast.com people didn't seem to want to help bridge the native gap between upstreams and the edge customers. Providers I know have multicast enabled and available for customers in some way/shape/form: CW, GBLX, Sprint, Qwest, UUNet/UUCast, Verio It's my understanding that Sprint has enabled pim on all customer-facing interfaces and is configured for nlri unicast multicast on all their bgp sessions so once a customer toggles their end to unicast+multicast they can get mbgp prefixes. I do suggest getting your routes in the table, which will not cause instability then later look at/concentrate on the rest, pim, msdp, etc.. - Jared
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
* bicknell@ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 16:52 CEST]:
I'll be the first to jump on the multicast bandwagon, but I don't work for an eyeball provider. The first adopters need to be DSL and cable modem providers, to the end user, on by default. Then we can go somewhere.
And when approached they'll claim that it'll melt their infrastructure - and they'll be right in a lot of cases. PPPoE and multicast still causes a traffic explosion that multicast was supposed to remove. When I was employed by a company deploying FTTH our vendor was working on a hack they named "multicast VLAN" to avoid a similar situation. No idea if they ever finished it (they weren't too keen with making deadlines, in my admittedly short-lived experience). -- Niels.
Hi quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4. i.e. if you take the average amount of data sent/received per node, whether per protocol or per OS, how much of it is able to use V6 currently? i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or from the applications themselves). Regards --Rob
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:32:02PM +0200, fingers wrote:
i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or from the applications themselves).
Yes, after trying to help a friend get IPv6 running on his WindowsXP system (you have to drop into a DOS box.. (but they did away with DOS, right?)), he decided it wasn't worth it if he had to do it that way. At some point M$ might make it user friendly for the windows users but at this point it's /not/ something that joe blow customer will be doing.
Regards
--Rob
-- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:32:02PM +0200, fingers wrote:
i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or from the applications themselves).
Yes, after trying to help a friend get IPv6 running on his WindowsXP system (you have to drop into a DOS box.. (but they did away with DOS, right?)), he decided it wasn't worth it if he had to do it that way.
At some point M$ might make it user friendly for the windows users but at this point it's /not/ something that joe blow customer will be doing.
start run cmd ipv6install How hard is that? Since you brought up Microsoft, you might want to go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/technologies/ipv6/default.asp Also, from the Research web site Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial deployments Hope that helps.
Regards
--Rob
-- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
Christian --------- i am me, i dont write/speak for them
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:54PM -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote:
start run cmd ipv6install
That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact that actually adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine.
Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial deployments
Depends on how you define 'suitable', I'm expecting a whole new breed of exploits. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:54PM -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote:
start run cmd ipv6install
That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact that actually adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine.
<flame> Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS? Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS. A thing like this: 8<--------- Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195] (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp. C:\> --------->8 is called a "Command Prompt" and has nothing to do with DOS. Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ? It's shell everywhere then :)
Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial deployments
Depends on how you define 'suitable', I'm expecting a whole new breed of exploits. They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the development versions of the stack :) And everything has bugs
</Flame> And now for some usefull content: http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/ http://research.microsoft.com/msripv6/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/howitworks/communications/ nameadrmgmt/introipv6.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/Downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/faq.asp And you'd probably like http://www.hs247.com/ too with loads of links or what about: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Protocols/IP/IPng/ And as for your "it's difficult': http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.html&forcepage=windows.html Or the single line: "ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1" Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection uses Neighbor Discovery link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42 preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42, 2591593s/604393s (addrconf) Tada ;) I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people. Maybe also a nice tool for people saying "but IPv4 has a GUI on windows" you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your "DOS" prompt ;) btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference. </end of (re-)education> Greets, Jeroen
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:01:35AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
<flame> Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS? Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS.
A thing like this: 8<--------- Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195] (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
C:\> --------->8 is called a "Command Prompt" and has nothing to do with DOS. Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ? It's shell everywhere then :)
Pardon me: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\>command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter. COMMAND [[drive:]path] [device] [/E:nnnnn] [/P] [/C string] [/MSG] [snip rest of output] Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is. [snip]
They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the development versions of the stack :) And everything has bugs
As soon as it's in use enough for an exploit to be useful, it will be.
</Flame>
[snip links] Don't forget http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/default.... Which instructs you to go to a command prompt, like I said =)
And as for your "it's difficult': http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.html&forcepage=windows.html Or the single line: "ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1"
Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection uses Neighbor Discovery link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42 preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42, 2591593s/604393s (addrconf)
Tada ;)
Yes, this is too difficult for 'joe blow user', as I said.
I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people.
Users do not read documentation.
Maybe also a nice tool for people saying "but IPv4 has a GUI on windows" you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your "DOS" prompt ;)
If a user can't point, click, and go, they're unlikely to do something, I've dealt with people that went over a month without their internet access simply because they were afraid they would have to troubleshoot their internet connection over the phone.
btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference.
Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier than typing start <cmd> from the DOS command prompt.
Greets, Jeroen
-- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: July 9, 2002 8:28 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
Pardon me:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\>command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter.
COMMAND [[drive:]path] [device] [/E:nnnnn] [/P] [/C string] [/MSG]
[snip rest of output]
Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is.
Pardon me: [brand new command prompt from the WinXP command prompt button] Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:\Documents and Settings\Vivien>command Microsoft(R) Windows DOS (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001. C:\DOCUME~1\VIVIEN> C:\DOCUME~1\VIVIEN> It looks to me like you have cmd.exe, which is a 32-bit Windoze-native etc shell, and then you have command.com which is used to run legacy DOS stuff. Command.com feels a _lot_ slower to me, too. Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
At 07:27 PM 7/9/2002 -0500, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
Pardon me:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\>command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter.
Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is.
At the risk of prolonging an exceptionally off-topic thread... if you run the (deprecated) MS-DOS command interpreter in Windows XP (command.exe) rather than the Win 2K / XP CLI (cmd.exe), you should not be surprised when command.exe tells you that it is what it is -- a version of the MS-DOS command interpreter for Win 2000 / XP. If you run cmd.exe on Win 2K (I don't have XP), you get: C:\>cmd /? Starts a new instance of the Windows 2000 command interpreter CMD [/A | /U] [/Q] [/D] [/E:ON | /E:OFF] [/F:ON | /F:OFF] [/V:ON | /V:OFF] [[/S] [/C | /K] string] And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread about whether IPv6 will ever take off. Cheers, Mathew
Thus spake "Matthew S. Hallacy" <poptix@techmonkeys.org>
Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is.
cmd.exe is a program which interprets MS-DOS commands. That doesn't mean it's DOS.
btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference.
Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier than typing start <cmd> from the DOS command prompt.
cmd.exe is a native Win32 console app; command.com is a CP/M program image running under DOS emulation in Virtual8086 mode. There's a big difference there. My PC can quack, but that doesn't mean it's a duck.
I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people.
Users do not read documentation.
Presumably the final release of the IPv6 stack will be GUIfied like the IPv4 stack was. Microsoft is fortunately more concerned with getting their stack working than creating an idiot-proof installer for a beta product. S
Stephen Sprunk wrote: <SNIP>
cmd.exe is a native Win32 console app; command.com is a CP/M program image running under DOS emulation in Virtual8086 mode. There's a big difference there. I am glad at least one other person knows the difference ;) (And probably anyone who did read the docs knows this)
Users do not read documentation. But people reading NANOG should, at least I hope you do. And with all the nice and spiffy autoconfig in IPv6 a user shouldn't be reading nor has to read it either :)
Presumably the final release of the IPv6 stack will be GUIfied like the IPv4 stack was. Microsoft is fortunately more concerned with getting their stack working than creating an idiot-proof installer for a beta product. Which is a good thing(tm)
As for the on-topic part of this message I would like to point people at a very good presentation Steve Deering gave at isoc.nl a couple of months ago here in the Netherlands: Powerpoint: http://isoc.nl/activ/cursusmateriaal/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.ppt OpenOffice/StarOffice: http://isoc.nl/activ/cursusmateriaal/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.sxi It contains a basic IPv6 intro (which users could also read ;) and a has a nice deployment projection at the end of the slides. For people not wanting to take a looky at this presentation, the projection is: ~2003 Q4 Asia ~2004 Q4 Europe ~2006 Q2 America So you US folks should start doing something with IPv6 if we take these numbers into account. You are tagging behind europe for almost 18 months! (btw, Steve wrote this up and he is american, so no cross-continent wars please :) Greets, Jeroen
You should be using cmd.exe under xp: C:\Documents and Settings\winter>cmd /? Starts a new instance of the Windows XP command interpreter --Phil -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:28 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6 On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:01:35AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
<flame> Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS? Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS.
A thing like this: 8<--------- Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195] (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
C:\> --------->8 is called a "Command Prompt" and has nothing to do with DOS. Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ? It's shell everywhere then :)
Pardon me: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\>command /? Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter. COMMAND [[drive:]path] [device] [/E:nnnnn] [/P] [/C string] [/MSG] [snip rest of output] Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me, using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change what it is. [snip]
They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the development versions of the stack :) And everything has bugs
As soon as it's in use enough for an exploit to be useful, it will be.
</Flame>
[snip links] Don't forget http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/defa ult.asp Which instructs you to go to a command prompt, like I said =)
And as for your "it's difficult': http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.html&forcepage=windows.html Or the single line: "ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1"
Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection uses Neighbor Discovery link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42 preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42, 2591593s/604393s (addrconf)
Tada ;)
Yes, this is too difficult for 'joe blow user', as I said.
I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult. IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people.
Users do not read documentation.
Maybe also a nice tool for people saying "but IPv4 has a GUI on windows" you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your "DOS" prompt ;)
If a user can't point, click, and go, they're unlikely to do something, I've dealt with people that went over a month without their internet access simply because they were afraid they would have to troubleshoot their internet connection over the phone.
btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference.
Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier than typing start <cmd> from the DOS command prompt.
Greets, Jeroen
-- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
Hi
start run cmd ipv6install
How hard is that?
that'll give me a 6to4, if not with a local address if nd is working, then to either 6bone or microsoft (it sends out proto 41 packets to 2 hosts on the net). I want simple native static v6 address. FreeBSD was quick 'n easy.
Since you brought up Microsoft, you might want to go to
http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/technologies/ipv6/default.asp
Also, from the Research web site
Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial deployments
they don't actually state much on those pages :( Regards --Rob
quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4.
here's traffic stats taken at NSPIXP6 (an IPv6 in Tokyo). http://www.wide.ad.jp/nspixp6/traffic.html still low, but there are a lot of spikes. itojun
Hi
quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4.
i.e. if you take the average amount of data sent/received per node, whether per protocol or per OS, how much of it is able to use V6 currently?
i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or from the applications themselves).
Regards
--Rob
The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps The production root servers see 4000-18000qps This might change in the next month as we bring online com/net/org and figure out how to open up the testbed for more users. --bill
In a "safe" place :) For access we need a signed release form. Can we send you the form?
* bmanning@karoshi.com (bmanning@karoshi.com) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 23:06 CEST]:
The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps
Where are those hidden?
-- Niels.
quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4. Check http://www.sixxs.net/presentation/ipv6-ripe42_files/frame.htm or HTML: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-i
Bill Manning wrote: pv6-ipng/ which explains the IPng (www.ipng.nl) setup and upcoming SixXS (www.sixxs.net) and has builtin mugshots of some traffic stats, live stats are available per user for the IPng.nl project (http://www.ipng.nl -> IPng.nl Users -> select user) <SNIP>
The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps The production root servers see 4000-18000qps
8<----- jeroen@purgatory:~$ dig @::1 -t ns . <SNIP> ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 384929 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. <SNIP> . 384929 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 471329 IN A 198.41.0.4 <SNIP> M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 471329 IN A 202.12.27.33 ----------->8 But no IPv6, where did you hide them.....*snikker* I don't mind testing them :) Greets, Jeroen
participants (17)
-
bmanning＠karoshi.com -
Chris Parker -
Christian Nielsen -
David Charlap -
fingers -
Jared Mauch -
Jeroen Massar -
John Kristoff -
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino -
Leo Bicknell -
Mathew Lodge -
Matthew S. Hallacy -
Niels Bakker -
Pete Kruckenberg -
Phil Rosenthal -
Stephen Sprunk -
Vivien M.