Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Sent from ipv6-only Android On Nov 27, 2012 10:57 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote: > >> Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for >> it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mobile now have ipv6 as a >> user optio

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Hi, > -Message d'origine- > De : Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] > Envoyé : mercredi 28 novembre 2012 07:57 > À : nanog@nanog.org > Objet : Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > &g

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Bjørn Mork wrote: Try to keep device bugs and network deployment issues separate. Please elaborate. What is a "bug" here? That Galaxy Nexus exposes "IPv4v6" when the baseband module doesn't support it? I don't know if they do special versions for the US market, but for

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote: > >> You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% >> certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all >> the time and they're almost definitely while they're not on wifi (my >> site uploads gps da

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote: Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mobile now have ipv6 as a user option because it is part of the requirements for the oems. I have been trying to locate someone w

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Sent from ipv6-only Android On Nov 27, 2012 8:39 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote: > >> You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the time and they're almost definitely wh

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote: You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the time and they're almost definitely while they're not on wifi (my site uploads gps data while people are skiing, so they're

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 27 Nov 2012, at 14:50, Randy Bush wrote: >>> sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support >>> mine. >> Pointers to these facts would be greatly appreciated, especially as no >> one else seems to know where to find them. > > to repeat, a very large broadband provider h

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > >> Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far more >> useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as an >> experiment, because their user base i

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

> From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net] > On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of devices attached to > the network (never mind the number of things causing that rate to accelerate[1]) makes IPv6 > in

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

> > The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market budget do you have? > How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much ? > > These are important, yes. > > > Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network operator and a

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 11/27/2012 11:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? >>> >> >> Yes, it is the app's fault. >> >> They are either doing IPv4 lit

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/27/2012 12:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message <50b512b6.1010...@mtcc.com>, mike writes: On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programme rs totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

In message <50b512b6.1010...@mtcc.com>, mike writes: > On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > > The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programme > rs totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. > > > This is a point that is prob

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

In message , Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > > Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far > > more useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as > > an experiment, because their user base is outstrippin

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/27/2012 11:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike wrote: Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong? Yes, it is the app's fault. They are either doing IPv4 literals or IPv4-only sockets The IPv4 literal issues is when they do "wget http://192.168

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike wrote: > On 11/26/12 8:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, >>> both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and large.

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/26/12 8:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. This is a point that is probably more significant than is appreciated. If the app, IT, and net

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/27/2012 11:19 AM, Dale W. Carder wrote: > Thus spake Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net) on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at > 03:16:27PM +: >> >> On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> >>> the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and >>> non-youtube gobble. >> >>

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Obviously, they deployed IPv6 for other reasons, and it would be far more useful to know *why* they deployed it in the first place (i.e., as an experiment, because their user base is outstripping their IPv4 allocations, etc.). IPv6 deployment is no

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message , Mikael > Abrah > amsson writes: >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: >> >> > I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, >> > both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Thus spake Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net) on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:16:27PM +: > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and > > non-youtube gobble. > > Just because their users can reach popular content-r

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

You can look back on Nanog56 and watch Liviu's presentation regarding implementation in the RCS-RDS network. Why, you ask? Because they/we can do it. IPv4 exhaustion is upon us. CGN will break some of the fuctionality of current day networks or rather APPs running on those networks. Because y

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > the cause is netflix and youtube, with a bit of help from fb and non-youtube > gobble. Just because their users can reach popular content-rich/high-bandwidth endpoint sites via IPv6 *that they can also reach via IPv4* doesn't seem to provide m

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

>> sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support >> mine. > Pointers to these facts would be greatly appreciated, especially as no > one else seems to know where to find them. to repeat, a very large broadband provider has said semi-publicly, and another has corroborated, wh

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support mine. Pointers to these facts would be greatly appreciated, especially as no one else seems to know where to find them. ;> > big initial ipv6 traffic bump This is what I que

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

>> when the average consumer (real) broadband connection becomes v6 >> capable, about 40% of the traffic is instantly ipv6, thank you >> netflix, facebook, netflix, google, netflix, and netflix. > 'When', or 'if'? The creeping proliferation of CGNs and the like, > along with your example of TVs a

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

>> I disagree, i simply see an additional fee for IPv4 coming about. > And that in itself seems like it would make IPv6-reachable things a > lot more compelling. could be. but ... i am a consumer end user. i wish to keep my bill down. unless there is a means for the user to exercise a meaningf

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote: > I am -- in addition to running eBGP for my employer -- also the acting > network strategist and proper IP networking evangelist at my employer. Thereby demonstrating how far out of the mainstream your enterprise is, given that those roles gen

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Mark Andrews wrote: The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is being done. IPv6 only is easy to setup if you already have dual stack. On my Mac it is "System Preferences", "Net

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:18:13PM + Quoting Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net): > How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are for corporate IT > departments, beyond a checklist item on RFPs in order to CYA?

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

In message , Mikael Abrah amsson writes: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > > Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and > > that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that > > I'm a fool for doubting all these (to me) wildly o

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

2013 - the year of the NAT. (the only way a single stacked address family is going to be able to talk to a single stacked member of a different address family... and unless we start agressive reuse of v4, this will happen sooner than later (dual-stack is rate limited to the smaller of the a

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

In message , Mikael Abrah amsson writes: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, > > both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and large. > > But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that I'm a fool for doubting all these (to me) wildly overoptimistic assertions about the coming ubiquity of na

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > The problem is that CGN and NAT444 works with todays devices, whereas IPv6 > does not (thinking mobile devices and residential CPEs). Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and that all this CGN and 444 stuf

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote: I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact, both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and large. But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy about being in v6 land since I see them

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Again, all the attention being lavished upon CGNs and 444 and whatnot are quite interesting indicators of perceived priorities. The problem is that CGN and NAT444 works with todays devices, whereas IPv6 does not (thinking mobile devices and resident

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Cutler James R wrote: > Those content/services/applications will only be reachable via IPv6 because > that is all that can be deployed without truly horrendous and costly > mismanagement of IPv4 address space. Our views differ in that it is my belief that said trul

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Interesting. All the IPv6 capable carriers I talk to are only > gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for things unreachable via IPv6. Which is pretty much everything on the Internet. > If you've got an IPv6 capable cell phone on an IPv6 capable mobile n

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 15:10 , "Dobbins, Roland" wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow >> us to cope with a few years of transition while there are still devices in >> homes that are IPv4-only,

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:47 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote: > On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Cutler James R wrote: > >> Have you looked at the current Apple software? It pretty much "just works" >> on IPv6. > > Yes, but it doesn't do or enable anything via IPv6 that it doesn't do or > enable via IPv4

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > If they don't commit, the game of chicken continues. Right - so, what new capabilities/economies of scale/essential conveniences are made possible by IPv6 but not IPv4, pour encourager les autres? This is not a rhetorical question. I belie

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/26/2012 04:38 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream from their ISP's. It's hugely problematic to acc

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Cutler James R wrote: > Have you looked at the current Apple software? It pretty much "just works" > on IPv6. Yes, but it doesn't do or enable anything via IPv6 that it doesn't do or enable via IPv4. > This also automatically brings along IPv6 capabilities. Capa

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and > foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream > from their ISP's. It's hugely problematic to accomplish internally, never mind for external

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > We have seen your kind of thinking. You totally mischaracterize my 'kind of thinking'. My entire career arc has been that of a technological evangelist. Yes, I think there's a lot that's wrong with IPv6, but it appears that it's the only

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/26/2012 04:24 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host operating systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support lighting v6 support up that I can think of. Wher

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host > operating systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support > lighting > v6 support up that I can think of. Where are the *deployments*, though? And l

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 14:53, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote: > It is significant because Why*) do you believe it is important to waste everybody's time with these kinds of arguments? We have seen your kind of thinking. First, the Internet was never going to replace X.25/Frame Relay/leased lines and b

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/26/2012 03:18 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Apple and Microsoft are application developers as well as OS vendors. How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their application development organizations? How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their c

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > Unfortunately most people that actually deploy and support applications can't > make the math come out right when the access providers don't provide a > path to 99% of the paying customers, then do just about everything they can > to hobble bypas

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow us > to cope with a few years of transition while there are still devices in homes > that are IPv4-only, but it certainly doesn't reduce or remove the imperative. I agre

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > NAT is bad. I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I'm unsure whether or not this is the prevalent view amongst those who control the pursestrings within network operators, however. --

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of > devices attached to the network (never mind the number of things causing that > rate to accelerate[1]) makes IPv6 inevitable at this point, you really aren't > paying att

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Owen DeLong wrote: less than 60% of the internet will still be IPv4 at that time. Do you mean "IPv4" or "IPv4 Only"? Because unless the remaining percentage of IPv4 is noticeably less usable, it will still not incur any user demand, and IPv6 is still a cost mitigation strategy, and unl

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Compulsion won't come from IPv6-only content. It will come from IPv6-only users. Any content/apps/service providers who fail to provide for this fact before we reach that point are making a bet-the-business gamble on the theory that NAT44(4...) will somehow scale well beyond what is likely IMHO.

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 04:57 , "Dobbins, Roland" wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> Users do not care and they will never have a "deliberate migration". > > I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most > contexts seems to be p

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland > wrote: > > > > On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > > >> Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators > who want to sustain their business. > >

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

We have numbers to share. We have performed two experiments at two different events LACNIC held this year: - June in Port-Au-Prince (~110 attendees) - October in Montevideo (~400 attendees) The question was: "What is the relation between IPv4 and IPv6 traffic in a fully dual-stacked network?". T

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > > Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who > want to sustain their business. > > I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. Operators are all free to choose

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > >> Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who >> want to sustain their business. > > I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part.

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who > want to sustain their business. I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. > Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/26/12 15:53, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >>> Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? >>> >> To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing >> kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. > Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Hi, >>> Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? >>> >> >> To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing >> kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. > > Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the mos

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Sent from ipv6-only Android On Nov 26, 2012 5:54 AM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote: > > > On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > Why is that a significant question? > > It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative *importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? There is none. Why is it needed? We need IPv6 to make the Internet continue working and scale for the future. We don't need IPv6 to solve an individuals need, we need it for the long t

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

> > Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? > > > > To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing > kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the most compelling

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 06:25:47AM -0800, Damian Menscher wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > > Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? > > > > To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing > kame. To my knowledge

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? > To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content. Unsurprisingly, this does not

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Why is that a significant question? It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative *importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the users and to the content/app/services networks. We are not yet at the point where ordi

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote: I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some industry imperative to light up network with IPv6. My point is that there is not. We'll all be better

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > Users do not care and they will never have a "deliberate migration". I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some industry imperative to

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

What do you mean with "deliberate migration"? Users do not care and they will never have a "deliberate migration". However ISPs do, if the user have IPv6 it is because the ISP deliberate migrate to v6 by enable it in their backbone, networks and user's CPEs. IMHO

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 26, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > almost all ip traffic is unintentional. Sure. But my point is the notion that observed IPv6 traffic volumes are due to deliberate migration is not correct. > when the average consumer (real) broadband connection becomes v6 capable, > about 40%

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

> My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today > is unintentional. almost all ip traffic is unintentional. "i want my mtv. money for nothin' and the chicks are free." < from a friend in a big broadband provider > when the average consumer (real) broadband connection b

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 04:29:15AM + Quoting Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net): > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > > from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. > >

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

joel jaeggli (joelja) writes: > On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > >On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > > >>from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. > >And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client > >OSes. My guess is that a

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffi

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home. And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today is unintentional.

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/20/12 7:32 AM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote: Hello, On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100 Tomas Podermanski wrote: It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:14 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Arturo Servin wrote: >> >> It won't. >> >> Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable >> Internet connection. >> > > Which likely decreases the network effect. > > Joe I disagree. Because IPv4 will bec

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Arturo Servin wrote: It won't. Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable Internet connection. Which likely decreases the network effect. Joe

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Arturo is right.. Internet users could care less what protocol they use just like most of us could care less if the road we drive to work is asphalt, chip seal, or concrete. We just want it to be smooth and get us where we want to go at the speed we want to drive. I can see some things changing t

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:51:50PM -0500, Jay scribbled: # On 11/20/2012 1:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: # >However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* robust # >IPv6 peering and infrastructure and are ready to go, but they have not # >turned it on for their fiber/cable/DSL cust

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

From: Jay [mailto:tech-li...@packet-labs.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:52 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration On 11/20/2012 1:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: > However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* robust >

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 11/20/2012 1:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* robust IPv6 peering and infrastructure and are ready to go, but they have not turned it on for their fiber/cable/DSL customers for reasons that are not clear to me. I keep pestering my h

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

It won't. Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable Internet connection. If you think you can do that with IPv4, you don't need to do anything (well, just plan for some budget for your CGNs). If not, better start deploying IPv6. .as On 21/11/20

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Tony Hain wrote: Tomas Podermanski wrote: Hi, It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deployi

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 21/11/2012, at 3:05 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong wrote: > >> It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a >> number >> of reasons. > > AMS-IX publishes stats too: > > > This is

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 21/11/2012, at 6:17 AM, Tomas Podermanski wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/20/12 7:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: >> I've found myself becoming a snob about IPv6. I almost look down on >> IPv4-only networks in the same way that I won't go see a film that isn't >> projected on DLP unless my arm is twisted.

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 20, 2012, at 14:44 , "Tony Hain" wrote: > If you assume that Youtube/Facebook/Netflix are 50% of the overall traffic, > why wouldn't a dual stacked end point have half of its traffic as IPv6 after > June??? "If you assume...". Kinda says it all right there. But more importantly, those

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Hi, On 11/20/12 7:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: > I've found myself becoming a snob about IPv6. I almost look down on > IPv4-only networks in the same way that I won't go see a film that isn't > projected on DLP unless my arm is twisted. I'm a convert, and I'm glad to > see the adoption rate edgin

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

While looking into the NTP chaos from Monday, I noticed that my personal servers have an NTP peer running IPv6. I have no idea how long that's been going on - it was a complete non-event ;). -- Harald

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Mike Jones wrote: > > On 20 November 2012 16:05, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low > >> for a number of reasons. > > > > AMS-IX publishes stats too: > >

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On 20 Nov 2012, at 16:42, Mike Jones wrote: > > If these figures are representative (google saying 1% of users and > AMSIX saying 0.5% of traffic) then it would indicate that dual stacked > users can push ~50% of their traffic over IPv6. If this is even close > to reality then that would be qui

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

I've found myself becoming a snob about IPv6. I almost look down on IPv4-only networks in the same way that I won't go see a film that isn't projected on DLP unless my arm is twisted. I'm a convert, and I'm glad to see the adoption rate edging up. However, I still scratch my head on why most maj

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100 > Tomas Podermanski wrote: > > > It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first > > time when native IPv6 on google statistics > > (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some > > might say it is tremendous succe

Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:42 , Mike Jones wrote: > On 20 November 2012 16:05, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a >>> number >>> of reasons. >> >> AMS-IX publishes stats too:

  1   2   >