Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))
Dear Ca By: 1) It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically, or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%" from these is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the peaks were reached on weekends and holidays due to more residential usage, you can clearly see such by zooming into the graph. In addition, the graph has been exhibiting an asymptomatic trend ever since a few years back. The COVID-19 pushed this graph up a bit due to the lock-down and work-from-home factors. Below was an analysis pre-pandemic: https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_2... 2) Since Google is one of the stronger IPv6 promoters, usage of IPv6 outside of the Google domain can only be lower, by simple logic deduction. Regards, Abe (2022-03-11 10:11) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 12 Message: 12 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:00:17 -0800 From: Ca By<cb.list6@gmail.com> To: Saku Ytti<saku@ytti.fi> Cc: Joe Greco<jgreco@ns.sol.net>,nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTyQT-OMq_KXxFe-sozWq3mSJ5gC_tKswdpJpi7mMEwFQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti<saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco<jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still heavily v4. Mind boggling. Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes.
It is solvable, easily and cheaply, like most problems (energy, climate), but not when so many poor leaders participate in decision making.
-- ++ytti
Ah, the quarterly ipv6 thread? where i remind you all? most of the USA is on ipv6 (all your smartphone, many of your home router, a growing amount of your clouds [i see you aws]) https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ Google sees over 40% of their users on ipv6, with superior latency https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Dear Ca By:
1) It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically, or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%" from these is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the peaks were reached on weekends and holidays due to more residential usage, you can clearly see such by zooming into the graph. In addition, the graph has been exhibiting an asymptomatic trend ever since a few years back. The COVID-19 pushed this graph up a bit due to the lock-down and work-from-home factors. Below was an analysis pre-pandemic:
Sorry for being imprecise in my communication, the number is 46% in the USA.
https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_2...
2) Since Google is one of the stronger IPv6 promoters, usage of IPv6 outside of the Google domain can only be lower, by simple logic deduction.
Google’s number represents how many users reach it over ipv6. Given Google’s ubiquity in the usa, it is a fair barometer for the usa at large. This data is helpful for content providers estimating demand for ipv6 (46% of users will use ipv6 if it is available) and for the network operator community to understand where their peers sit. In summary, there is a lot of ipv6 on the usa internet today. Almost half for Google, per their published numbers. Over 75% end to end ipv6 on some large mobile networks. Hence my appeal to view published data. Reading anecdotal Nanog mails from a handful of folks concluding ipv6 has failed will not leave the passive impartial observer with an accurate view. Regards,
Abe (2022-03-11 10:11)
------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 12
Message: 12 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:00:17 -0800 From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> <cb.list6@gmail.com> To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> <saku@ytti.fi> Cc: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> <jgreco@ns.sol.net>, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTyQT-OMq_KXxFe-sozWq3mSJ5gC_tKswdpJpi7mMEwFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTyQT-OMq_KXxFe-sozWq3mSJ5gC_tKswdpJpi7mMEwFQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still heavily v4. Mind boggling.
Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes.
It is solvable, easily and cheaply, like most problems (energy, climate), but not when so many poor leaders participate in decision making.
-- ++ytti
Ah, the quarterly ipv6 thread? where i remind you all? most of the USA is on ipv6 (all your smartphone, many of your home router, a growing amount of your clouds [i see you aws]) https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
Google sees over 40% of their users on ipv6, with superior latency https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
Ca By wrote:
Google’s number represents how many users reach it over ipv6. Given Google’s ubiquity in the usa, it is a fair barometer for the usa at large.
Given google's popularity on handheld platforms, the users of which tend to be much less sensitive to IPv4 translation mechanisms and have a much higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more conservatively as Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the large content provider arena which have a strong mobile representation.
Reading anecdotal Nanog mails from a handful of folks concluding ipv6 has failed will not leave the passive impartial observer with an accurate view.
Its incontrovertible that IPv6 has racked up a long list of failures in its original objectives, expectations, predictions and timelines, even up to this point. I am not really convinced that IPv4 can be ignored/marginalized/obsoleted without penetration reaching over 90%, globally. And until that point, IPv6 is an optimization, not a requirement. Perhaps it will accelerate at some percentage point. But if it drags out for another decade or two, all bets are off. Joe
On 3/11/22 9:39 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I am not really convinced that IPv4 can be ignored/marginalized/obsoleted without penetration reaching over 90%, globally.
I feel like that's an unfair characterization / summarization. The VAST MAJORITY of the pro IPv6 discussions that I see are targeting parity between IPv4 and IPv6. As such, there is absolutely no ignoring, no marginalizing, no obsoleting of IPv4 in those discussions. The vast majority of the discussions that I've participated in have not been IPv4 exclusive or IPv6. -- The breakdown tends to be three categories, exclusive IPv4 (old), dual IPv4 and IPv6 (current), and exclusive IPv6 (far Far FAR future). As I see it, if we divide the three categories equally, 0-33% is IPv4 only, 34-66% is dual IPv4 and IPv6, and 67-99% (can be) IPv6 only. -- I fudged the numbers a %, to simplify the 1/3 fractional math. -- As such, we have crossed over from the exclusive IPv4 (0-33%) into the dual IPv4 and IPv6 (34-66%). We have a long way to go before even considering exclusive IPv6 (67% (or higher)). I believe that talking about removing IPv4 in any capacity /now/ is a disservice to the larger conversation. I have my doubts about getting back to a single protocol Internet (IPv6) in my lifetime, much less my career.
And until that point, IPv6 is an optimization, not a requirement.
How long do you wait during the "optimization" window before actually deploying IPv6? The 11th hour? Why not start deploying IPv6 with new green field deployments at the 2nd hour? -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
I believe that talking about removing IPv4 in any capacity /now/ is a disservice to the larger conversation.
We mostly agree. Except that there is a significant vocal portion of the IPv6 spectrum that would like to start obsoleting IPv4 now.
I have my doubts about getting back to a single protocol Internet (IPv6) in my lifetime, much less my career.
I both doubt and very much hope that it will not be quite that long, but even so, the fact that it can even be considered a possibility should be a significant wake up call. In any event, all this underscores the reality that IPv4 requires more investment to carry along until that point.
And until that point, IPv6 is an optimization, not a requirement.
How long do you wait during the "optimization" window before actually deploying IPv6? The 11th hour? Why not start deploying IPv6 with new green field deployments at the 2nd hour?
Until you have the itch to do so, until you have a business case to do so, until you no longer have any excuse not to do so. The opt in optimization is optional. Joe
It appears that Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> said:
higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more conservatively as
Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the large content provider arena which have a strong mobile representation.
AT&T, Comcast, and Charter/Spectrum, the three largest cable companies, have IPv6 support. I expect a lot of Google searches and Gmail messages come from them, too. I think it's more accurate to say that large networks have looked at the costs and implemented IPv6. Small networks, many of which have no need to expand beyond their existing IPv4 allocations, largely have not. Of course, there are a lot more small networks than large ones, even though they don't necessarily represent many users, so guess who we hear from? R"s, John
On Mar 11, 2022, at 12:20 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
It appears that Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> said:
higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more conservatively as
Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the large content provider arena which have a strong mobile representation.
AT&T, Comcast, and Charter/Spectrum, the three largest cable companies, have IPv6 support.
As do (so I hear) mobile providers, which is increasingly how people around the world get access to the Internet. However, this discussion has drifted a bit — it wasn’t (supposed to be) a discussion about IPv6 deployment per se, but rather network operations reality as they impact IPv6 deployment. There was an assertion (that I am not questioning) that there are various kit vendors who claim IPv6 support, but when network operators attempt to deploy that kit, the IPv6 support is found to be show-stoppingly buggy, lacking in required features, or otherwise causing said network operators frustration/irritation/etc and/or to give up on deploying IPv6 “until it is more mature” (or “more/any customers demand it”). For whatever reason, there appears to be a reluctance to name names in such cases. My question was whether it might be helpful in encouraging IPv6 deployment (or at least reducing the amount of disappointment) for network operators to be more public when reality does not match vendor claims, just as “timed full disclosure” has helped in addressing (some) security-related issues. Regards, -drc
Verizon does not support ipv6 as far as I know, I have fios and they said it was not supported. On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:20:48 -0500, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> said:
higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more conservatively as
Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the large content provider arena which have a strong mobile representation.
AT&T, Comcast, and Charter/Spectrum, the three largest cable companies, have IPv6 support. I expect a lot of Google searches and Gmail messages come from them, too.
I think it's more accurate to say that large networks have looked at the costs and implemented IPv6. Small networks, many of which have no need to expand beyond their existing IPv4 allocations, largely have not.
Of course, there are a lot more small networks than large ones, even though they don't necessarily represent many users, so guess who we hear from?
R"s, John
-- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici wb2una covici@ccs.covici.com
Verizon Wireless does have v6. I see a 100.64/24 on my phone all the time. On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:11 PM John Covici <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
Verizon does not support ipv6 as far as I know, I have fios and they said it was not supported.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:20:48 -0500, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> said:
higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more conservatively as
Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the large content provider arena which have a strong mobile representation.
AT&T, Comcast, and Charter/Spectrum, the three largest cable companies,
support. I expect a lot of Google searches and Gmail messages come from
have IPv6 them, too.
I think it's more accurate to say that large networks have looked at the costs and implemented IPv6. Small networks, many of which have no need to expand beyond their existing IPv4 allocations, largely have not.
Of course, there are a lot more small networks than large ones, even
though
they don't necessarily represent many users, so guess who we hear from?
R"s, John
-- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it?
John Covici wb2una covici@ccs.covici.com
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:16 PM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
Verizon Wireless does have v6. I see a 100.64/24 on my phone all the time.
wireless != wired/internet/fios/dsl Verizon, as I noted elsewhere, in the wired network (as701 / 702 / 703, mostly these days) supported v6 in ~2005 across the entire backbone(s). This technology never seems to have trickled down to the residential (consumer and small business) edge.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:11 PM John Covici <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
Verizon does not support ipv6 as far as I know, I have fios and they said it was not supported.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:20:48 -0500, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> said:
higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more conservatively as
Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the large content provider arena which have a strong mobile representation.
AT&T, Comcast, and Charter/Spectrum, the three largest cable companies,
support. I expect a lot of Google searches and Gmail messages come from them, too.
I think it's more accurate to say that large networks have looked at the costs and implemented IPv6. Small networks, many of which have no need to expand beyond their existing IPv4 allocations, largely have not.
Of course, there are a lot more small networks than large ones, even
have IPv6 though
they don't necessarily represent many users, so guess who we hear from?
R"s, John
-- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it?
John Covici wb2una covici@ccs.covici.com
On Mar 11, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Google's statistics...
I'm not sure which of you I'm replying to. The comment was made on NANOG the other day that we should discount Google statistics because they have been promoting IPv6 for a decade. It's true that they have been doing so. But they aren't the only people with statistics. https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn,tw,gf,zz,us,jp,th,br,mx,ae,lk,uy,hu,lu,fi,il,pt,gt,ch,gp,gb,mq,nl,ca,ee,ec,re,au,np,tt,at,ro,ga,ie,no,gy,bt,py,pe,kw,sx,mm,nz,co,cz,bo,ni,tg,ph,pl,sg,is,ar,kr,om,cl,sv,jm,si,mo,se,lv,jo,cg,ba,lc,zw,ir,id,md,hn,by,sk,al,rw,pf,ge,bz,dk,ru,hr,rs,it,vc,ke You might look at the following links. Eric Vyncke has been putting up charts basically on Google, Akamai, and APNIC statistics for a while. One thing to consider is that around 90 countries (92 in this capture, as low as 89 a couple of days ago) have 5% or greater response rate using IPv6. Google and Akamai have their own content networks, and in at least some countries only externalize AAAA records or respond to IPv6 requests. APNI isn't that way; they don't operate a content network, but rather accept traffic from across the backbone. Consider that a content network essentially reports traffic from a customer network to their first hop ISP, while when APNIC reports an IPv6 access, the father form APNIC to the collector in question has to include every network and every router in the path. Now look at these: https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=k&countries=in https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CC?x=1&s=1&p=1&w=30&c=IN I think the APNIC numbers demonstrate that paths through the backbone generally support IPv6 end to end, and that from a routing perspective there is no reason to favor IPv4. There are 8 Countries (this evening) that Google reports roughly equal response rates from using IPv4 or IPv6. cf https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=in,my,sa,be,de,fr,gr,vn. This doesn't prove that IPv6 has taken over the world, but it does prove that those who would discount available statistics sources are a little too shrill in doing so. Where IPv6 has a problem today is with enterprise. IMHO, this is basically because enterprise is looking at the bottom line. If ISPs were to do what Mythic Beasts says they do, which is charge their users for address space, IPv6 is virtually free while IPv4 costs something. I suspect that enterprise would change its tune dramatically.
On 14-03-2022 05:06, Fred Baker wrote:
... Where IPv6 has a problem today is with enterprise. IMHO, this is basically because enterprise is looking at the bottom line. If ISPs were to do what Mythic Beasts says they do, which is charge their users for address space, IPv6 is virtually free while IPv4 costs something. I suspect that enterprise would change its tune dramatically. ...
This has already started to happen. For example my preferred hosting provider recently made the IPv4 address a line item on their invoices. The total price did not change. Customers can now save money by electing not to use IPv4. This makes sense for both the supplier and the customer and it will happen more and more. The cost of clinging to IPv4 will rise and it will become more visible. Daniel
Hi, Ca By: 1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1) " ... the number is 46% in the USA. ": Whoa! Your revised number is even higher. And, I could round it up to 50%! Seriously, please be specific about where are you reading the number that you are reporting? I commented after reading your second reference, because I could not find relevant data from the first one. Is there something hidden there? Please identify. 2) Re: Ur. Pt. 2): I have to wait for your clarification for Pt. 1) above to proceed with these additional statements. Regards, Abe (2022-03-11 15:06) On 2022-03-11 11:19, Ca By wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Dear Ca By:
1) It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically, or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%" from these is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the peaks were reached on weekends and holidays due to more residential usage, you can clearly see such by zooming into the graph. In addition, the graph has been exhibiting an asymptomatic trend ever since a few years back. The COVID-19 pushed this graph up a bit due to the lock-down and work-from-home factors. Below was an analysis pre-pandemic:
Sorry for being imprecise in my communication, the number is 46% in the USA.
https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_2...
2) Since Google is one of the stronger IPv6 promoters, usage of IPv6 outside of the Google domain can only be lower, by simple logic deduction.
Google’s number represents how many users reach it over ipv6. Given Google’s ubiquity in the usa, it is a fair barometer for the usa at large. This data is helpful for content providers estimating demand for ipv6 (46% of users will use ipv6 if it is available) and for the network operator community to understand where their peers sit.
In summary, there is a lot of ipv6 on the usa internet today. Almost half for Google, per their published numbers. Over 75% end to end ipv6 on some large mobile networks. Hence my appeal to view published data.
Reading anecdotal Nanog mails from a handful of folks concluding ipv6 has failed will not leave the passive impartial observer with an accurate view.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-11 10:11)
------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 12
Message: 12 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:00:17 -0800 From: Ca By<cb.list6@gmail.com> <mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com> To: Saku Ytti<saku@ytti.fi> <mailto:saku@ytti.fi> Cc: Joe Greco<jgreco@ns.sol.net> <mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net>,nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTyQT-OMq_KXxFe-sozWq3mSJ5gC_tKswdpJpi7mMEwFQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailto:CAD6AjGTyQT-OMq_KXxFe-sozWq3mSJ5gC_tKswdpJpi7mMEwFQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti<saku@ytti.fi> <mailto:saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco<jgreco@ns.sol.net> <mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still heavily v4. Mind boggling.
Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes.
It is solvable, easily and cheaply, like most problems (energy, climate), but not when so many poor leaders participate in decision making.
-- ++ytti
Ah, the quarterly ipv6 thread? where i remind you all? most of the USA is on ipv6 (all your smartphone, many of your home router, a growing amount of your clouds [i see you aws])
https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
Google sees over 40% of their users on ipv6, with superior latency
participants (11)
-
Abraham Y. Chen -
Ca By -
Christopher Morrow -
Daniel Karrenberg -
David Conrad -
Fred Baker -
Grant Taylor -
Joe Maimon -
John Covici -
John Levine -
Josh Luthman