Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Sunday, July 5, 2015, Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:

> > On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > I guess the WISPs I advise get better advice :)
>
> I think this is a key item for people to have in mind.  We can all follow
> poor advice and add in new layers of NATs, possibly including certain
> applications within the NAT cone, or we can deliver DS, or DS-like service
> via several technologies.
>
> There are a lot of devices that can do NAT from roll your own Linux or
> pfSense style up to commercial solutions that vendors will sell you.  (I
> recall cisco pitching the ASR1K for this years ago).  You could even use
> something like LISP to do these redundancy things within your network.
>
> I would treat NAT the same way people treat CDNs which is find the large
> destinations and encourage people to use IPv6 for those.
>
> Looking at the “top sites” here: http://www.alexa.com/topsites
>
> Almost all of them are IPv6 enabled.  You can even poke at sites with
> external tools like this:
>
> http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php
>
> Frank Bulk also monitors most of the major carrier sites for their IPv6
> reliability and stability.  He often gets me to contact our IT department
> to address the issues they have coping with the traffic volumes involved on
> the IPv6 side for the www.us.ntt.net and www.ntt.net sites.  (and yes
> frank, I got your email and texts yesterday :) )
>
> I would say there is no one right/wrong way to do this, but getting the
> core of your network IPv6 enabled first then pushing to your edges is a
> must-do item for the upcoming quarter or two.
>
> I was once advised on technical issues where I explained in perfect
> technical detail the problems and solution path, but the management started
> talking about the optics of the issue.  Take advantage of the NBC, etc
> coverage to ensure these priorities are taken care of.  This may feel like
> stooping low to some people, but it’s important to get any IPv6 items off
> your todo list.  There is a great ipv6-ops list as well out there where
> detailed questions can be asked and answered amongst those that are doing
> similar things.
>
> While I dislike what T-Mobile USA has done from a technical side, their
> success shows that the IPv6 only edge *is* possible.  This means we can
> take away the idea that we *must* have IPv4 for a device to be
> reachable/considered “online”.
>
> I anxiously await the results of the apple/IPv6/iOS9 changeover and the
> increased traffic that will occur as a result.  I think 2016 will drive the
> traffic levels to many multiples where they are now and much closer to
> parity on the global backbones.
>
> - Jared


I like the sentiment of what Apple has done. It is a move in the right
direction.

I don't think apple's move will materially change traffic levels.  IPv6
traffic levels will move when when iPhones can be deployed as ipv6-only
with parity to ipv4-only.

Time will tell.

But, it is also telling that android and windows phone are live in the
hands of ipv6-only customers and there is no plan for that with Apple.

CB