Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

ripe76.ripe.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#61

Post by pojkofd00m »

Regarding France and the slide about the growth of ISP and the correlation with the IPV6 deployment I can say that sudden user growth in france is very often due to an aggressive offer from one of the ISP, resulting in the migration of a large number of users from one ISP to another, no new clients.

I do think this is a valid indicator in "not fully developped yet" countries, but I don't think its very representative for others.

As for the slow down some ISP in france started to regroup several clients under the same IPV4 addr, essentially assigning them the said ipv4 and a range of ports, some sort of PAT at the ISP level, I don't know if it is an isolated solution but it might explain part of the slow down. Doesn't explain why they do it tho.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#62

Post by Arnt »

ec109685 wrote: post #45
lmm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. When it comes to consumer ISPs, who are the people paying for the high-end packages? > The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through h…

There are millions of private ipv4 addresses available. Can you talk about how subnet reuse becomes a problem?

Too many people use 192.168.0/24 and 192.168.1/24 and eventually some of those networks need to be connected. You can only have so many of those in an organisation before it becomes a pain point.

A conslutant friend told a story about a customer who had been through a few mergers and demergers. One nightly database dump there involved parts of one database being copied to another, both internal to the same company, through five layers of NAT. One of the routers had a 1500-line NAT configuration.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#63

Post by bogomipz »

Arnt wrote: post #51
ahbs66 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? If the rest of your message is true, why are the ipv6 numbers so low, if it's not because of politics?

IPv6 growth has been an almost flat curve for many years. Now suddenly it's not. I personally expected IPv6 growth to slow down gradually. I find it very odd that the growth hit a wall like that. Oversimplifying somewhat: The number of new v6-capable users increased every month, then boom, zero. I also find it odd that politics would have no effect at 13% or 14% deployment and then block growth entirely at 15%.

Then please explain exactly what these "politics" are then rather just throwing around the word around in the abstract. I find it odd that people say "oh its politics" without explaining what or how IPv6 is being "politicized."

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#64

Post by Dagger2 »

privateSFacct wrote: post #24
88e282102ae2e5b wrote: post #9

Is there a reason ISPs would be reluctant to discuss their motivations for IPv6 deployment? That is, why can't you just ask them?

How much would you pay to access the ipv4 internet? How much would you pay to access the ipv6 internet? What are support costs for ipv6 endpoints / compatibility needs / help desk / securing / understanding / training all techs etc vs ipv4? = ISP motivation? ipv4 is relatively well understood, existing infrastructure to serve it, and people are willing to pay MORE to access the ipv4 internet, and basically won't pay…

It would be more accurate to say that they couldn't have made it any _easier_ if they tried. v4 doesn't have the necessary forward compatibility for that.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#65

Post by Dagger2 »

daurnimator wrote: post #40
bogomipz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite…

I've heard that a lot of ISPs in Australia are stuck on IPv4 as their whole billing systems (written in early 2000s) use IPv4 addresses for everything. Including techniques like mapping an array of size 2^32 (entirely possible with virtual addresses) to keep counters for each user. It would be a complete rewrite of their billing systems to work with IPv6, and they no longer have many/any programmers on staff.

There's no particular reason to use the entire IP as the lookup key though; all customers will be numbered out of the ISP's single allocation and you don't need to keep track of the traffic of each individual host, just the overall traffic of each customer.

You'd end up needing a much smaller array for v6 -- small enough that you could fit it into the presumably-unused parts of those 2^32 arrays that correspond to the v4 class E space.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#66

Post by Dagger2 »

Symbiote wrote: post #48
ahbs66 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's normal, no? They deploy IPv6 because they don't have enough IPv4 addresses. And since most servers in the world are not IPv6 ready and will never be for a long time, if you want to reach an IPv4 server you have to go through their CGNAT which may have a piss-poor performance. I really wish RIPE could force ISPs to release the addresses they don't need :(

12% of all web servers have IPv6, including most of the largest sites. https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-ipv6/all/all

It's worth noting that many of the highest traffic websites are in that 12%, to the point that an average dual-stacked customer will see about 50% of their traffic by volume go over v6.

That's a very relevant stat when it comes to provisioning CGNAT capacity for your customer base.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#67

Post by stephengillie »

bogomipz wrote: post #60
stephengillie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? Unfortunately, this is true for at least one major ISP in the USA. IPv6 support is seen as a low priority internally, as they work to merely keep their devices online. One huge secret about Juniper devices is that the hardware is remarkably unreliable. At one company, a partial Juniper SSG failure prevented a fail…

>"One huge secret about Juniper devices is that the hardware is remarkably unreliable." This is patently untrue. The MTTF is the same as Cisco gear. The only reason this would be a "huge secret" is because it is not widely held opinion. There are bad revision of chipsets on certain boards from time to time yes. And if you place a large order you will likely feel that pain if you're shipped boards with those revs. I k…

MX series routers do seem more reliable than their SRX counterparts. It's just frustrating to go into a major incident retrospective and hear that - yet again - we're not redundant in a data center because we rebooted a Juniper device and now it needs an RMA.

Juniper even instructed us to reboot the passive node before any failover, just to catch these issues.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#68

Post by Arnt »

bogomipz wrote: post #63
Arnt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 growth has been an almost flat curve for many years. Now suddenly it's not. I personally expected IPv6 growth to slow down gradually. I find it very odd that the growth hit a wall like that. Oversimplifying somewhat: The number of new v6-capable users increased every month, then boom, zero. I also find it odd that politics would have no effect at 13% or 14% deployment and then block growth entirely at 15%.

Then please explain exactly what these "politics" are then rather just throwing around the word around in the abstract. I find it odd that people say "oh its politics" without explaining what or how IPv6 is being "politicized."

People appear to use the word "politics" to mean any motivation that's very weakly connected to the matter at hand, but rather instead to another relationship between the parties. Ill will from a previous confrontation, for example. Or a general desire to prevent department x from meeting more of the Quarterly Corporate Targets than department y does.

In this context it has to mean something that didn't impede IPv6 growth at all for a while, then suddenly blocked IPv6 growth completely. Can't imagine what it would be.

(Sorry, didn't notice the comment until much too long had passed. I realise noone's going to read this. Oh well.)

Post reply on HN