http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-... I can hear people, say oh no.... Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-...
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda, a researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users may experience some glitches, such as people using VPN software to connect with their offices or users of point-to-point software such as Skype, he adds.
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one. Set-top boxes are generally IPv4; anyone with a TV is likely to need to upgrade at least the software. Skype is not yet IPv6-capable, and will need one an update. "The ISPs will take care of this" is a really empty hope. The ISPs will take care of their part, but users should expect that there will be things jiggling over the coming couple of years.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> To: "Franck Martin" <franck@genius.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, 12 February, 2011 9:43:56 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 is on the marketers radar On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-...
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda, a researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users may experience some glitches, such as people using VPN software to connect with their offices or users of point-to-point software such as Skype, he adds.
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one.
Speaking of which: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/020811-cisco-linksys-ipv6.html ;)
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda, a researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users may experience some glitches, such as people using VPN software to connect with their offices or users of point-to-point software such as Skype, he adds.
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one.
Speaking of which: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/020811-cisco- linksys-ipv6.html
;)
Key quote in that article from Cisco explains why they are still behind. "IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a range of new services and improved user experiences." Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Internet" thing. It isn't. It is imperative in keeping THIS generation of internet running. This has nothing to do with any new services or improving anyone's experience. This is about maintaining existing services and even being able to have an experience at all. It is going to become increasingly difficult to maintain ubiquitous v4 service. In fact, v6 is going to degrade some people's experience slightly because the larger protocol overhead means less payload for a given size packet meaning it will take more packets to transfer a given amount of data. Apparently some people in this world believe that IPv6 somehow creates a "different" internet. It doesn't. It simply adds more house numbers to the existing streets.
On 2/11/2011 3:31 PM, George Bonser wrote:
"IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a range of new services and improved user experiences."
Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Internet" thing. It isn't.
Reread what they wrote. IPv6 is "foundational" to the next-generation Internet. If it's not, then IETF should have added 96 bits and left the rest of it alone. I can't blame Cisco for making sure how they implement the linksys is appropriate for the long term. It's important that they get certain things right, as future improvements of the Internet DO depend on IPv6 being functional. Jack
In message <4D55ABCE.7030800@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/11/2011 3:31 PM, George Bonser wrote:
"IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a range of new services and improved user experiences."
Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Internet" thing. It isn't.
Reread what they wrote. IPv6 is "foundational" to the next-generation Internet. If it's not, then IETF should have added 96 bits and left the rest of it alone.
I can't blame Cisco for making sure how they implement the linksys is appropriate for the long term. It's important that they get certain things right, as future improvements of the Internet DO depend on IPv6 being functional.
They have had a #@!@ decade to add IPv6 support. They shouldn't need anymore time. Part of the reason we are in this mess is their delay in delivering products. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 2/11/2011 6:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
They have had a #@!@ decade to add IPv6 support. They shouldn't need anymore time. Part of the reason we are in this mess is their delay in delivering products.
Nah. The network side of things probably won't be too bad. Corporate world will have it a little rough, and the applications/appliances which haven't bothered with IPv6 will have it the worst. Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com> To: "Franck Martin" <franck@genius.com>, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, 12 February, 2011 10:31:42 AM Subject: RE: IPv6 is on the marketers radar
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda, a researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users may experience some glitches, such as people using VPN software to connect with their offices or users of point-to-point software such as Skype, he adds.
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one.
Speaking of which: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/020811-cisco- linksys-ipv6.html
;)
Key quote in that article from Cisco explains why they are still behind.
"IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a range of new services and improved user experiences."
Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Internet" thing. It isn't. It is imperative in keeping THIS generation of internet running. This has nothing to do with any new services or improving anyone's experience. This is about maintaining existing services and even being able to have an experience at all. It is going to become increasingly difficult to maintain ubiquitous v4 service. In fact, v6 is going to degrade some people's experience slightly because the larger protocol overhead means less payload for a given size packet meaning it will take more packets to transfer a given amount of data.
Apparently some people in this world believe that IPv6 somehow creates a "different" internet. It doesn't. It simply adds more house numbers to the existing streets.
Thanks to ITU for bringing the Next Generation Network (NGN), which was in fact IPv6+License but then got everyone confused, side tracked, etc...
On Feb 11, 2011, at 15:43, Fred Baker wrote:
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one. Set-top boxes are generally IPv4; anyone with a TV is likely to need to upgrade at least the software. Skype is not yet IPv6-capable, and will need one an update. "The ISPs will take care of this" is a really empty hope. The ISPs will take care of their part, but users should expect that there will be things jiggling over the coming couple of years.
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter already) . If larger ISP's provide their own tunnels, they could use private IPv4 space for customers to tunnel IPv6 over, and the only issue would be a few router settings to change. According to test-ipv6.com my home network has now a score of 10/10 for both IPv4 and IPv6. Didn't take very long to do, maybe 10 minutes. Initial speed tests show only a marginal slowdown of IPv6 compared to IPv4. However, if I look at what would be involved at my $dayjob to support IPv6, that would be far more involved. What's more, I cannot justify the cost to support IPv6 only clients, as there are none yet. For the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6. I won't have to worry about this until most major content providers support IPv6-only clients. So, I think we'll transition to a situation where for some purposes (Skype, gaming, file-sharing) there will be a benefit for (tunneled) IPv6 compared to (NATed) IPv4, but for simple content providers there will still be no incentive to leave IPv4. For the software there is a similar scenario. Clients typically use a web browser or other high-volume popular application. It is easy to add IPv6 support to these. However, content providers use many different pieces to provider their sites, including custom interfaces to databases etc. It's a huge task to make all of those work with IPv6. Again, it seems it is far easier to deal with the relatively homogeneous base of users for IPv6, compared to the fragmented and irregular market of content providers. -Geert
-----Original Message----- From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch@adacore.com]
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway. In many markets, they don't. Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer to swap routers. And find the capital to pay for them. And have a system for updating the firmware and configurations of those devices. Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new gateway, when the one they have is still functioning, and might even be brand new.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address, or record unique visitors by IP address. It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that you'd panic. Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all their customers and just do it, than to track which customers asked for IPv6 explicitly.
So, I think we'll transition to a situation where for some purposes (Skype, gaming, file-sharing) there will be a benefit for (tunneled) IPv6 compared to (NATed) IPv4, but for simple content providers there will still be no incentive to leave IPv4. . . . Again, it seems it is far easier to deal with the relatively homogeneous base of users for IPv6, compared to the fragmented and irregular market of content providers.
That sounds heterogenous: web-browsing-only users, and peer-to-peer-application-using users. Lee
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways. Sure, but the same thing is possible with a cheap 6-year-old sub-$50
On Feb 12, 2011, at 21:03, Lee Howard wrote: popular Linksys wifi router, see http://opensystems.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/linksys-wrt54g-ipv6-howto/ for example. The point is that it can be cheap, relatively easy and painless for users to upgrade. Basically, it should not have to cost anything extra to set up new users for IPv6. The same hardware that handles IPv4 today can be programmed to do IPv6.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address, or record unique visitors by IP address. It might als
o increase latency, but probably not so much that you'd panic. Users don't care about IP geo-location or anti-DDOS measures, or any of the other reasons you list. These are things content providers care about, but they don't get to choose wether their viewers use IPv4 or IPv6.
Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all their customers and just do it, than to track which customers asked for IPv6 explicitly. As long as a majority of users come over IPv4, better anti-DDOS measures or anti-abuse procedures for IPv6 are not going to make any difference. "When you DOS my site, please use IPv6, so we can better find out your location and more effectively block your IP address."
Users are going to drive adoption of IPv6, if and when they find a "killer-app" where IPv6 can provide usability that (heavily NATed) IPv4 can't. This could be better file-sharing tools, lower latency online gaming, better long-distance video-calling or whatever, as long as the benefits will be worth the relatively small (<$50) investment of money and time. For content providers, as long as 90+% of the net is IPv4 only and essentially nobody is IPv6 only, providing dual-stack support is just adding cost for little or no gain in viewership. Content providers often depend on dozens if not hundreds of pieces of hardware and software to provider their services, so supporting IPv6 is vastly most expensive than it is for users to take advantage of it. In my case, the upgrade to IPv6 was free. There must be many more using an Apple router (any model, Express, Extreme or otherwise) that can upgrade to IPv6 for free. However, I can't list any benefit from doing so, except from going to test-ipv6.com and seeing a 10/10 score. Basically, you have to be a geek to be interested in IPv6. That's got to change, before there will be any meaningful shifts. -Geert
From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch@adacore.com] Basically, it should not have to cost anything extra to set up new users for IPv6. The same hardware that handles IPv4 today can be programmed to do IPv6.
That is not the case for a significant number of home gateways and other consumer electronics. This is a market where a few dollars saved in flash or RAM means market share or profitability. Only in high-end gateways is there capacity for IPv6 (see the plans from Linksys, Netgear). You can argue about whether this "should" be true, but the manufacturers say they can't add IPv6 to the current low-end gateways.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6. [why content providers hate NAT and will dual-stack] Users don't care about IP geo-location or anti-DDOS measures, or any of the other reasons you list. These are things content providers care about, but they don't get to choose wether their viewers use IPv4 or IPv6.
You were arguing, I thought, that content providers would stay on IPv4-only for a long time, and that web users would never move until content was IPv6-only. I disagree with the first part: most web content will be dual-stack, so that as much traffic as possible will be over IPv6.
Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all their customers and just do it, than to track which customers asked for IPv6 explicitly. As long as a majority of users come over IPv4, better anti-DDOS measures or anti-abuse procedures for IPv6 are not going to make any difference. "When you DOS my site, please use IPv6, so we can better find out your location and more effectively block your IP address."
That's not what I was saying. Since anti-DDOS in IPv4 will inflict collateral damage, interfering with innocent users' experience of the site, web content providers should have a strong preference for IPv6. Meaning they will make it available, and possibly promote it as much as possible.
Users are going to drive adoption of IPv6, if and when they find a "killer-app" where IPv6 can provide usability that (heavily NATed) IPv4 can't. This could be better file-sharing tools, lower latency online gaming, better long-distance video-calling or whatever, as long as the benefits will be worth the relatively small (<$50) investment of money and time.
The killer app is the avoidance of CGN: head-to-head gaming, p2p, SIP, remote access, etc. ISPs are deploying IPv6 (http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2011/11_pr_ipv6_transition_020111.html) Web content providers are deploying IPv6 (http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/) It's bad that home gateways need replacing (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9208718/Cisco_Linksys_routers_still_ don_t_support_IPv6?taxonomyId=16) And consumer electronics are dangerously far behind.
For content providers, as long as 90+% of the net is IPv4 only and
Less than a year before > 10% of the net has IPv6. You read it here first.
essentially nobody is IPv6 only, providing dual-stack support is just adding cost for little or no gain in viewership. Content providers often depend on dozens if not hundreds of pieces of hardware and software to provider their services, so supporting IPv6 is vastly most expensive than it is for users to take advantage of it.
Cisco and Netgear (see article above) say that essentially every user needs a new gateway in the $150 range. You already have one-- excellent, but the high end does not dominate the market. You're arguing that web content provider costs are greater than $100 per user? I don't mean to trivialize the effort content providers must make. But to suggest that it's enormously higher than any other segment's investment, and has no benefit, is misguided. Lee
It's bad that home gateways need replacing
It's not neccessarily bad. There are a lot of older devices out there and technology has progressed a couple of generations since then. That spells market opportunity for manufacturers of IPv6 gateways, particularly at the higher end of the market where the impact of the recession has not hit as hard. And given that a gateway is a box running Linux with some network interfaces, there is an opportunity for added features, maybe even so far as an Android style apps market. The general public is now learning that the Internet is going through a transition and that IPv6 is future proof. The smart money would now be putting gateways on the market to sell to early adopters. And the creative money would be looking for a way to link the IPv6 gateways with an IPv6 home server that runs apps from an apps market. Those apps could be anything from a backup of your blog to a SIP PABX. --Michael Dillon P.S. if anyone has money to invest, contact me and let's talk.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Dillon" <wavetossed@googlemail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, 14 February, 2011 10:37:51 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 is on the marketers radar
It's bad that home gateways need replacing
It's not neccessarily bad. There are a lot of older devices out there and technology has progressed a couple of generations since then. That spells market opportunity for manufacturers of IPv6 gateways, particularly at the higher end of the market where the impact of the recession has not hit as hard. And given that a gateway is a box running Linux with some network interfaces, there is an opportunity for added features, maybe even so far as an Android style apps market.
The general public is now learning that the Internet is going through a transition and that IPv6 is future proof. The smart money would now be putting gateways on the market to sell to early adopters. And the creative money would be looking for a way to link the IPv6 gateways with an IPv6 home server that runs apps from an apps market. Those apps could be anything from a backup of your blog to a SIP PABX.
--Michael Dillon
P.S. if anyone has money to invest, contact me and let's talk.
one new box nearly every year: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebox IPv6 available since 2007: http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/la-freebox-adopte-l-ipv6-et-se-mue-en-serveur...
See my notes on the WNDR3700v2 here: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE#Routers.2FWireless_Access_Po... If someone has a suggestion for additional testing, please let me know. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Franck Martin [mailto:franck@genius.com] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:57 AM To: Michael Dillon Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 is on the marketers radar ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Dillon" <wavetossed@googlemail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, 14 February, 2011 10:37:51 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 is on the marketers radar
It's bad that home gateways need replacing
It's not neccessarily bad. There are a lot of older devices out there and technology has progressed a couple of generations since then. That spells market opportunity for manufacturers of IPv6 gateways, particularly at the higher end of the market where the impact of the recession has not hit as hard. And given that a gateway is a box running Linux with some network interfaces, there is an opportunity for added features, maybe even so far as an Android style apps market.
The general public is now learning that the Internet is going through a transition and that IPv6 is future proof. The smart money would now be putting gateways on the market to sell to early adopters. And the creative money would be looking for a way to link the IPv6 gateways with an IPv6 home server that runs apps from an apps market. Those apps could be anything from a backup of your blog to a SIP PABX.
--Michael Dillon
P.S. if anyone has money to invest, contact me and let's talk.
one new box nearly every year: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebox IPv6 available since 2007: http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/la-freebox-adopte-l-ipv6-et-se-mue-en-serveur...
In message <8B082D10-A0EA-4012-8656-E60DD7EC76D0@adacore.com>, Geert Bosch write s:
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from =20 $150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways. Sure, but the same thing is possible with a cheap 6-year-old sub-$50=20
On Feb 12, 2011, at 21:03, Lee Howard wrote: popular Linksys wifi router, see = http://opensystems.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/linksys-wrt54g-ipv6-howto/ for example. The point is that it can be cheap, relatively easy=20 and painless for users to upgrade.
Basically, it should not have to cost anything extra to set up=20 new users for IPv6. The same hardware that handles IPv4 today can be programmed to do IPv6.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.=20 =20 Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address, or record unique visitors by IP address. It might als
o increase latency, but probably not so much that you'd panic. Users don't care about IP geo-location or anti-DDOS measures, or any of the other reasons you list. These are things content providers care about, but they don't get to choose wether their viewers use IPv4 or IPv6.
Except for the most basic, static of websites, content providers are going to prefer IPv6 over IPv4. I don't know whether web hosting companies will ever automatically dual-stack the PTA's website, but at some point it will be easier for them to warn all their customers and just do it, than to track which customers asked for IPv6 explicitly. As long as a majority of users come over IPv4, better anti-DDOS measures or anti-abuse procedures for IPv6 are not going to make any difference. "When you DOS my site, please use IPv6, so we can better find out your location and more effectively block=20 your IP address."
Users are going to drive adoption of IPv6, if and when they find a "killer-app" where IPv6 can provide usability that (heavily NATed) IPv4 can't. This could be better file-sharing tools, lower latency online gaming, better long-distance video-calling or whatever,=20= as long as the benefits will be worth the relatively small=20 (<$50) investment of money and time.
Or ISP's will drive it because they don't want the long term costs of LSN and pay the handful of CPE vendors to develop and ship products with IPv6 enabled and not ship IPv4 only products. $1 per IPv6 enabled product sold for N years. Just have a check box for the ISPs participating in the scheme + other when doing the warranty registation.
For content providers, as long as 90+% of the net is IPv4 only and essentially nobody is IPv6 only, providing dual-stack support is just adding cost for little or no gain in viewership. Content providers often depend on dozens if not hundreds of pieces of hardware and software to provider their services, so supporting IPv6 is vastly most expensive than it is for users to take advantage of it.
And how much of that is already IPv6 capable?
In my case, the upgrade to IPv6 was free. There must be many more using an Apple router (any model, Express, Extreme or otherwise) that can upgrade to IPv6 for free. However, I can't list any benefit from doing so, except from going to test-ipv6.com and seeing a 10/10 score. Basically, you have to be a geek to be interested in IPv6. That's got to change, before there will be any meaningful shifts.
-Geert=
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
In message <000901cbcb22$3cf978a0$b6ec69e0$@org>, "Lee Howard" writes:
-----Original Message----- From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch@adacore.com]
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway. In many markets, they don't. Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer to swap routers. And find the capital to pay for them. And have a system for updating the firmware and configurations of those devices. Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new gateway, when the one they have is still functioning, and might even be brand new.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address, or record unique visitors by IP address. It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that you'd panic.
And a lot of that depends upon how you implement LSN. * LSN per pop or a uber mega LSN? * How many customers per address? 2 or 200? -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Feb 13, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <000901cbcb22$3cf978a0$b6ec69e0$@org>, "Lee Howard" writes:
-----Original Message----- From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch@adacore.com]
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway. In many markets, they don't. Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer to swap routers. And find the capital to pay for them. And have a system for updating the firmware and configurations of those devices. Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new gateway, when the one they have is still functioning, and might even be brand new.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address, or record unique visitors by IP address. It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that you'd panic.
And a lot of that depends upon how you implement LSN. * LSN per pop or a uber mega LSN? * How many customers per address? 2 or 200?
Most LSNs will probably be regional collections of LSN boxes that are (somewhat randomly) load balanced. Owen
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-...
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda, a researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users may experience some glitches, such as people using VPN software to connect with their offices or users of point-to-point software such as Skype, he adds.
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one. Set-top boxes are generally IPv4; anyone with a TV is likely to need to upgrade at least the software. Skype is not yet IPv6-capable, and will need one an update. "The ISPs will take care of this" is a really empty hope. The ISPs will take care of their part, but users should expect that there will be things jiggling over the coming couple of years.
NetGear is apparently stepping up to the plate on the IPv6 CPE support -- their WNDRxxxx series have stubs for IPv6 config in place now. Granted, time and testing will reveal exactly how well (or poorly) implemented the support is... I was pleasantly surprised to discover this while providing "Family Tech Support" last weekend: (See second list, #1) # A New Firmware Version is Found. Do You Want to Upgrade to the New Version Now? # Current Firmware Version: V1.0.4.68NA # New Firmware Version: V1.0.7.98NA # Current GUI Language Version: V1.0.0.41 # New GUI Language Version: V1.0.0.64 # # 1.Fixed "can't get IP from 3700 DHCP server". # 2.Fixed "Some applications have disconnection issue in every 5~10 minutes like Google talk, Battlefield, Starcraft, mIRC, AIM, ooVoo, etc." # 3.Fixed "Web page loading slow". # 4.Fixed "DHCP reservation issue, change IP address of one device in the reservation table and the device is changed to new IP, but the attached device list still displays old IP". # # 1.IPv6 certified. # 2.DLNA certified. # 3.Remove WEP and TKIP from "Up to 135Mbps" and "Up to 300M It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various CPEs default to on the public-facing side. In the NetGear WNDR3700's case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for: Disabled (default) Auto-detect 6to4 Tunnel Pass Through Fixed DHCP PPPoE At least that gives the various broadband providers flexibility in tailoring their tech.support processes. (You know -- "click here, click there," etc.) FYI, -Jeff
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Jeff Hartley wrote:
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various CPEs default to on the public-facing side. In the NetGear WNDR3700's case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for: Disabled (default) Auto-detect 6to4 Tunnel Pass Through Fixed DHCP PPPoE
missing: DS-Lite 6RD :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
In message <AANLkTikXoLx1fsimoKx=hntOVUbWdADNkTmwCb-84V1j@mail.gmail.com>, Jeff Hartley writes:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-me=
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible impac= t. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,=94 said Leo Vegoda, a researche= r with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users may experience som= e glitches, such as people using VPN software to connect with their offices= or users of point-to-point software such as Skype, he adds.
Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is =
ans-for-marketers-048657/ likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one. Set-top bo= xes are generally IPv4; anyone with a TV is likely to need to upgrade at le= ast the software. Skype is not yet IPv6-capable, and will need one an updat= e. "The ISPs will take care of this" is a really empty hope. The ISPs will = take care of their part, but users should expect that there will be things = jiggling over the coming couple of years.
NetGear is apparently stepping up to the plate on the IPv6 CPE support -- their WNDRxxxx series have stubs for IPv6 config in place now. Granted, time and testing will reveal exactly how well (or poorly) implemented the support is...
I was pleasantly surprised to discover this while providing "Family Tech Support" last weekend: (See second list, #1) # A New Firmware Version is Found. Do You Want to Upgrade to the New Version Now? # Current Firmware Version: V1.0.4.68NA # New Firmware Version: V1.0.7.98NA # Current GUI Language Version: V1.0.0.41 # New GUI Language Version: V1.0.0.64 # # 1.Fixed "can't get IP from 3700 DHCP server". # 2.Fixed "Some applications have disconnection issue in every 5~10 minutes like Google talk, Battlefield, Starcraft, mIRC, AIM, ooVoo, etc." # 3.Fixed "Web page loading slow". # 4.Fixed "DHCP reservation issue, change IP address of one device in the reservation table and the device is changed to new IP, but the attached device list still displays old IP". # # 1.IPv6 certified. # 2.DLNA certified. # 3.Remove WEP and TKIP from "Up to 135Mbps" and "Up to 300M
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various CPEs default to on the public-facing side. In the NetGear WNDR3700's case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for: Disabled (default) Auto-detect 6to4 Tunnel Pass Through Fixed DHCP PPPoE
Where is SLAAC?
At least that gives the various broadband providers flexibility in tailoring their tech.support processes. (You know -- "click here, click there," etc.)
It's not always a broadband vendor on the upstream side.
FYI, -Jeff
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various CPEs default to on the public-facing side. In the NetGear WNDR3700's case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for: Disabled (default) Auto-detect 6to4 Tunnel Pass Through Fixed DHCP PPPoE
Where is SLAAC?
Mark Andrews, ISC
Based on their tiny bit of surrounding text, apparently that's "Pass Through", although that naming choice seems odd to me. I'd call it "native", but we're back to marketing at that point... I agree with Daniel (above) on the noticeable lack of DS-Lite and/or 6rd. Chicken-and-egg situation regarding the most profitable to implement? Lack of development resources? Coming RSN? ...I was surprised to see anything at all, hence the share. -Jeff
In message <AANLkTikTYpAuVaSESNr0rEoTAkfi_Ff5xy5jM-j-wn30@mail.gmail.com>, Jeff Hartley writes:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various CPEs default to on the public-facing side. =A0In the NetGear WNDR3700's case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for: =A0 Disabled (default) =A0 Auto-detect =A0 6to4 Tunnel =A0 Pass Through =A0 Fixed =A0 DHCP =A0 PPPoE
Where is SLAAC?
Mark Andrews, ISC
Based on their tiny bit of surrounding text, apparently that's "Pass Through", although that naming choice seems odd to me. I'd call it "native", but we're back to marketing at that point...
SLAAC/PPPoE/DHCP/Fixed are all native. 6to4/6rd/6in4 are all tunnels of one form or another. I was seeing Pass Through as bridge mode. DS-lite is also a tunnel. DNS64 also needs to be added once they workout how to send it to the the box. Along with a NAT46.
I agree with Daniel (above) on the noticeable lack of DS-Lite and/or 6rd. Chicken-and-egg situation regarding the most profitable to implement? Lack of development resources? Coming RSN? ...I was surprised to see anything at all, hence the share.
-Jeff
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-...
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
Hmm, I recognize a lot of that article. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what's heavy quoting and paraphrasing? http://www.returnpath.net/blog/received/2011/02/end-of-ipv4/ (I don't mind, really -- the word needs to get out, and marketers always resist technology unless there's either guaranteed ROI or guaranteed FUD.) -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions
On 02/11/2011 10:46 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-...
I can hear people, say oh no....
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT. Hmm, I recognize a lot of that article. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what's heavy quoting and paraphrasing?
http://www.returnpath.net/blog/received/2011/02/end-of-ipv4/
(I don't mind, really -- the word needs to get out, and marketers always resist technology unless there's either guaranteed ROI or guaranteed FUD.)
These are Internet marketers you're talking about, hardly the most honest souls in the world ;) Paul p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you..
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 17:52 -0500, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you.. What's the difference between a used car salesman and a network equipment salesman?
The used care salesman knows when he's lying to you :)
And the used car saleman probably knows how to drive... Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 15:52, Dorn Hetzel <dorn@hetzel.org> wrote:
p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you..
What's the difference between a used car salesman and a network equipment salesman?
The used care salesman knows when he's lying to you :)
The required software on the fuel injection doesn't require a separate non transferable license? -Blake
participants (17)
-
Blake Dunlap -
Daniel Roesen -
Dorn Hetzel -
Franck Martin -
Frank Bulk -
Fred Baker -
Geert Bosch -
George Bonser -
J.D. Falk -
Jack Bates -
Jeff Hartley -
Karl Auer -
Lee Howard -
Mark Andrews -
Michael Dillon -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Graydon